"Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed
'dozens' of its Linux developers...to delete the AIX and/or 
Dynix source code from their computers," SCO's objection 
claims.

"One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source 
code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code
 he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his 
computer," SCO says.

"Moreover, Mr. Rochkind’s testimony goes further and 
establishes that where SCO did have source code coordinates, it
 was provided. There are roughly 100 items not challenged by
 IBM that are largely source code disclosures. In addition,
 “for many of the challenged items in the December Submission, 
there is code imbedded in the disclosure email or other 
document, or found at a referenced URL (internet website) 
address.” (Rochkind Decl. ¶ 11, Exh. 2.) For example, Item 
No. 3 (Exh. 13) is NUMA/ptx locking routines contributed to 
Linux. The December Submission states (at 5) that the “code in 
the 4 associated source code files appeared in a patch for the 
2.4.6 kernel” and provides an internet address for the 
patch. Inexplicably, items such as this and others of 
similar nature have been struck."

The Magistrate Judge’s Order goes so far as to strike SCO 
submissions where the code associated with a particular method 
and concept is cited in the Report, but cannot be accessed 
because it resides in an IBM server to which only IBM has 
access. This is true, for example, of Item No. 146, involving 
differential profiling. (Rochkind Decl. ¶¶ 13-15,
Case 2:03-cv-00294-DAK-BCW Document 724 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 
41 of 60 36 Exh. 2.) This was in fact the only misused method 
that IBM’s expert discussed. Rochkind explained that the 
disclosed method includes a URL to Dynix source code that
SCO could not access: “The URL referencing the Dynix/ptx 
scripts is for an internal IBM server to which neither SCO nor 
I have access. It is part of the Linux development materials 
that SCO sought from IBM, but that appear not to have been 
produced. Accordingly, the actual code cannot be present in 
Item No. 146, although IBM has access to it.” (Rochkind 
Decl. n.3 at 6, Exh. 2) (emphasis added).) In stating that 
there was “no evidence” before her of SCO’s inability to comply
 with the July 2005 Order as she interpreted it, the Magistrate
 Judge thus ignored the foregoing expert testimony and 
compounded her erroneous decision not to consider such evidence
 with respect to the Items individually.