SCO Announces Final Termination of IBM's Licence 807
ickle_matt writes "SCO have announced the final termination of IBM's UNIX license, despite Novell telling them they can't. Interestingly enough there's a new set of "stolen code" figures in the release - 'approximately 148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels, containing 168,276 lines of code. This Sequent code is critical NUMA and RCU multi-processor code previously lacking in Linux. Sequent-IBM has also contributed significant UNIX-based development methods to Linux in addition to the direct lines of code specified above.' "
Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, aren't the NUMA and RCU multi-processor patents owned by IBM? SCO might own some of the code, but since they are licensing IBM's patents IBM could sue them for infringing on their patents. Is this part of the current IBM v SCO lawsuit?
web server running IIS? (Score:5, Interesting)
$ HEAD http://ir.sco.com
200 OK
Connection: close
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:42:15 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Content-Type: text/html
Client-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:42:16 GMT
Client-Response-Num: 1
Page-Completion-Status: Normal
Page-Completion-Status: Normal
Angry... (Score:5, Interesting)
"...was terminated for improper transfer of Sequent's UNIX source code and development methods into Linux." (emphasis mine)
You heard it here first, people. SCO owns the UNIX development methods too. That means that producers of just about any software (because who hasn't been influenced by UNIX development methods?) will have to pay off SCO. What a bunch of bull.
So that is why... (Score:2, Interesting)
btw, does this means that non SMP machines are in the clear???
No Threatening Of Customers (Score:5, Interesting)
In a departure from their standard MO, SCO doesn't threaten IBM customers who currently hold Dynix/ptx licenses, and instead just claims that no new licenses may be issued.
Maybe they are starting to worry about gettting nailed on extortion charges?
Class-action suit (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO planting code (Score:5, Interesting)
But what is preventing SCO from adding in code from Linux (which is openly available) into their (closed) UNIX code and then claiming is was there first and was 'stolen' by Linux? C'mon, we are not expecting SCO's management to play fair here - how hard would it be to backdate code additions?
Okay. (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the truth's out, is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, what we're really talking about is IBM code. No more BS weasle-words, they're talking about code they NEVER owned in the first place.
Well, that tears it: SCO's suing IBM for contributing their own code to the kernel. Yeah, that's totally gonna hold up in court.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe. As far as I understand the stories, IBM has written NUMA and RCU code for their System V based Unix (AIX)
IBM's System V license seems to state that when they add code to their SysV (==AIX) that code has to be treated as the rest of the SCO owned SysV code. So IBM wrote some code, included it in SysV/AIX, and now they can't include the exact same code in Linux, because of their SysV contracts with SCO...
RCU, NUMA... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IBM's solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Those nefarious nogoodniks - trying to ensnare innocent customers in their illegal activities!!!
Re:web server running IIS? (Score:5, Interesting)
ir.sco.com is running IIS. [netcraft.com]
Re:The end is nigh! (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't call making about $3K ( so far ) off of this farce "dumb"...
SCO is playing a game, and I'm going to make as much money off of it I can...
SCO forum postponed (Score:2, Interesting)
Notes: SCO Forum in Las Vegas has been postpoined until Autumn 2003
Read into that what you will...
- Brian.
injunction (Score:5, Interesting)
Good point. I don't know why IBM hasn't filed for a temporary injunction against the license termination. It would accomplish two things. 1) it would put AIX users a bit at ease (even if IBM has indemnified them), and 2) would get this thing in a courtroom quicker which is *obviously* the last thing SCO wants. I believe when they start getting legal defeats the stock will tank.
Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM has owned those patents since '92 when they bough sequent, sequent had those patents since the late 80's so either way SCO SOL.
Other SCO news/Computer Associates Settles (Score:4, Interesting)
This is an unrelated case (remember, Canopy Group makes a living suing people). However, given the timing, I am now lead to believe that part of the settlement was that CA agreed to buy some of SCO's phony "Linux Licenses".
Curiouser and Curiouser (Score:4, Interesting)
Right?
I wonder who bought the stock that's been selling off.
Re:RCU, NUMA... (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, they are distributing the same thing they are saying has been stolen.
Re:Code won't be released until trial (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is what they should want if they are really suffering damage; they can still sue for past damages. By not revealing the code SCO are giving a judge a very clear signal that they are not suffering enough to need the code removed ASAP and don't therefore need any major compensation.
TWW
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, IBM (and Sequent before them) has made very sure that they wrote up a general outline of how the process works, and then made an implementation on AIX (and Dynix/ptx). They then made a very similar implementation on Linux. As long as they can show that both implementations came from the general outline, there should be no problem.
Heck, they should be able to argue that they can copy their stuff from AIX to Unix as long as there is a general outline. They may be able to argue that as long as they wrote it, and nothing of Unix comes out to the public, that they're in the clear.
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Interesting)
(I'm an ex-IBMer who transfered to Beaverton right after the sale, and it's absolutely terrible to see what IBM did to the Sequent culture.)
linux kernel 2.6 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Presumably IBM would say "but the Sequent code when added to Linux does not infringe that arrangement".
Wouldn't they? Don't know how that would help AIX though...
Novel (Score:5, Interesting)
They have already indicated that Novell has the right to tell SCO that they can not do this action. It now becomes breach of contract unless there was some item in the contract about this.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
multi processor, eh? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:What's Next? (Score:3, Interesting)
Remainder of my
i have to interject here... (Score:2, Interesting)
the senior IT people really do know their stuff, at least in that firm; it just takes a while to push change of that scope.
ed
Hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
If SCO had a case, they'd be suing all those involved. Notice that they're targetting IBM, who they can likely cast in the role of the Big Bad Guy, picking on lil old SCO. They can't do that with SGI, who's not much bigger, these days.
Also notice how they really did NOT want Red Hat involved, which is -definitely- in the realm of tiny, poor and (when they want to) are able to pull the "cute kid on the block" type pose.
If SCO had a case, they'd be suing everyone on the NUMA development site. They aren't. They'd be suing all companies which have exported previously commercial UNIX code to Linux. They aren't.
Ergo, SCO have no case. But the damage they can cause the industry as a whole (win or lose) could be potentially nmassive. The USAF has nothing on SCO, when it comes to collateral damage.
SCO might have a case here (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Since when have Press Releases (Score:3, Interesting)
They're not. They are a longstanding part of the classic pump-and-dump [sec.gov], however.
Why don't journalists just ignore SCO...
- This is Slashdot. There are no journalists here.
- This is just a link to SCO's press release - there is no evidence that actual journalists are paying attention to it, as yet.
- If SCO can move the markets with this horse manure, then it doesn't matter how badly it smells, it's still news.
-renardLinux is worth $79,000 (Score:3, Interesting)
I am currently using the most valuable peice of software I have ever seen....cool. I'm rich.
Re:IBM's solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Mcbride can stop chewing his pinky and mouthing off about "1 million dollars" now, cos that won't even pay for the ink to write all the 0's on the end of the cheque he will soon have to write
Re:isn't this enough to find matches? (Score:4, Interesting)
What will be interesting is if when the dust settles this is the kernel code that SCaldera have claimed is theirs and has been copied verbatim into the Kernel.
Pretty amusing when you consider that not a single line of this code originated with SCO/Caldera/AT&T or Novell and in fact the SCO group have never owned any of this code and agreements and amendments to the original SYS 5r4 license signed between IBM and AT&T grant IBM full control over any code they create for use with AIX, and that Sequent developed the technology seperate from Unix but implemented it on Unix which disallows claims from SCaldera that the code is a derivative of their work.
168276 lines of code? Let's see them!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
But the whole basis of this case is taht the code has been improperly released to the public! If SCO is telling the truth (HAH!), then we ALREADY HAVE THE CODE they're contesting! Take your code to court, get a sworn and signed affidavit that the code you're showing is unaltered, from before IBM released these suspicious lines, and then SHOW IT TO US!
Of course a few weeks ago, McBride declared that they couldn't reveal which bits of the Linux code infringed, because then the coders would just go and fix it. If they refuse to allow this to take place, then I'd say they're not quite bargaining in good faith.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
HOWEVER, the contract between Sequent and AT&T has NOT been made public by SCO nor IBM and so it is not clear to third parties whether or not the Sequent-AT&T agreements give Sequent the same rights as were given to IBM, though one may speculate based on the format of the IBM-AT&T agreements (see my article for full details).
Fundamentally, this is a contract law case in which the status of the Sequent-AT&T and IBM-AT&T agreements are defined. In other words, when IBM bought Sequent, what happened to the Sequent-AT&T agreement? Were it made null and all dealings between Sequent and AT&T now under the stipulations of the IBM-AT&T agreement? Or is it the case that code developed by Sequent is still bound by the original Sequent-AT&T contract?
Someone more familiar with contract law will have to respond; however, I believe that if in fact ANY code developed by Sequent BEFORE it was bought by IBM AND that code was placed in a SysV derivative (in this case probably Dynix/ptx) AND that code was placed in the Linux kernel, then it may very well be the case that SCO is standing of firm legal ground on that issue.
There are, of course, other details to this situation which may invalidate SCO's claims to right of the code, such as the GPL, and unclean hands doctrine (both arguments which IBM has included in its rebuttal) but I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens. Also, read my article.
Re:RCU, NUMA... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Offer Linux for download.
---and---
2. Don't disclose the IP infringement so that the infringement can be cured by parties who are not willfully infringing, such as Red Hat, SuSE, etc.
Count lines (Score:2, Interesting)
Can anyone tell med where the rest is? Is there really so much NUMA-code in Linux 2.6?
Wait a minute - IBM now owns Sequent (Score:3, Interesting)
1) IBM doesn't have rights to that
2) IBM bought Sequent but didn't buy their code
SCO's actions get weirder all the time!
Did anyone notice... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Code won't be released until trial (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why RedHat's suit is interesting, because they are asking for a fast decision based on the BS that SCO has been shoveling. If SCO refuses to prove it's claims of infringement by showing the code, and proving not only that SCO holds the copyright, but that their code predates the Linux stuff ... RedHat gets not only a legal declaration that it's kernel code does not infringe, but gets damages too.
They could end up owning SCO before IBM even gets to court, which means that they would therefore be suing IBM ... and I think they could settle amicably.
Re:multi processor, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now as I understand it (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose you can sign a contract stipulating just about anything - and since we havn't seen the Sequent contract yet (if ever) there could be something idiotic like that in there.
SCO's carefully phrased release... (Score:5, Interesting)
The release says that IBM was (allegedly) contractually obligated to treat its OWN work product which it developed based on SCO's predecessor's code in the same way (i.e., subject to the same restrictions) as the code it had licensed from SCO. It quite carefully says that IBM contributed "148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code" to Linux. But what SCO is talking about here ("Sequent UNIX code") is IBM's code, and not SCO's or AT&T's code. If IBM agreed to make its own code be subject to the license (and IBM says that it did not, since it claims that this provision was overriden by a side letter agreement that made completely different arrangements), then this would be a matter of contract between IBM and SCO (which IBM is very vigorously contesting). It would not mean that SCO owns the copyright to subject matter independently developed by IBM.
It would not, even if true, give SCO any rights vis-a-vis a Linux user who had nothing to do with IBM and/or its contract with SCO. Off hand, I would say that the only way a Linux user would be at risk would be if there were substantial code written by the original copyright owner that found its way in some recognizable form into the Linux 2.4 or 2.5 kernels, and (even it that turned out to be the case), if the copyright owner never gave its permission for that code to be included. I have not seen where either of these contentions has been clearly alleged, except by implication, as a result fo SCO's threats.
It is of course possible that there is such code overlap, but it is SCO's burden to prove it. I have not seen any proof of this. Even if they were to prove it, the Linux user would then be allowed to show SCO's consent to this inclusion, such as by the authorized release of the code in question under the GPL.
It seems to me that SCO's case against the typical Linux business user is awfully speculative at this point.
I don't think I need a license. (Score:3, Interesting)
4592051 lines of code, only counting
168276 lines of disputed code, stated by SCO in their latest press release.
If every line of code SCO claims to be in Linux IS in Linux, then it is only 3.6% (roughly) - and of that code, they claim that MOST of it is the NUMA and RCU (what is RCU? Can someone enlighten me?) - code that 99% of people don't even use anyway!
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Interesting)
It might turn out that the code in question was really only supportave code, libraries and header information taken from a common ancestor, BSD or earlier unixies
SCO might be trying to make the point that by taking some code from BSD/AIX and merging with other code then releasing it to Linux, IBM in fact released all the code to linux.
I point to other posts, made throughout all this time, that AIX's supportave architecture and framework is fastly different then Linux, and a direct copy of code would not work.
Re:Not the UNIX license. (Score:3, Interesting)
It hasn't been. The license is perpetual and irrevokable. Barring a court order to the effect, IBM still has license to sell AIX. Darl McBride is just on crack.
If Sequent retained the copyright to the code in question, then SCOX does not have any business suing over violation of someone else's copyrights. Either SCOX or Sequent own the copyright, but not both.
IBM is going to squash SCOX like a little bug. I imagine that when the stock goes below $1 and is delisted, IBM will probably open up the petty cash account and make all of this go away.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, what the hell, I'll guess. I'm guessing that with OOP, how multiple inheritance is defined is dependent on what language you are talking about, and in contract law it is dependent on the law and on precedent.
An approach that I would personally favour in both programming and law is that where two classes (contracts) need to be parents of another class, where the two classes (contracts) have the same functions/variables (clauses/definitions), the class (contract) lower down in the hierarchy (chronology); i.e., the more immediate parent node, takes precedence.
This strikes me, off the top of my head, as being fairly reasonable at least in programming. I don't really know how the hierarchy would work in contract law. Again, someone more knowledgeable will have to comment.
Ever hear of "the Big Lie" ??? (Score:3, Interesting)
The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
And SCO's telling a real whopper. . .
AIX vs. Dynix/ptx (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it did. However, if they don't have such an agreement over Dynix/ptx, then IBM may very well be screwed. If what SCO says is true (even though what they said about their right to terminate AIX wasn't), then IBM may be in a world of hurt. If Dynix/ptx code must be treated as a derivative of System V, then there may be actual trouble here. Remember, AIX and Dynix/ptx are completely separate products with completely separate licensing schemes. SCO may have actually found a legal leg to stand on. Unless IBM can produce similar documentation about Sequent's code, it may belong to SCO.
(By the way, how does SCO have Dynix/ptx source code to compare against the Linux kernel?)
And apparently you were asleep... (Score:3, Interesting)
Rewriting Linux now will not do a damn bit of good. It doesn't absolve anyone from past infringements, and it won't mean that IBM did not breach their contract.
IBM's alleged contract violation is between IBM and Caldera-renamed-SCO and has absolutely no bearing on Linux. IF, and I stress IF (because as others have pointed out, an overwhelming amount of evidence indicates it is almost certainly not the case), Linux were infringing on a SCO copyright, liability would only exist AFTER SCO has provided the information and the kernel coders have had an opportunity to remove the infringing code. Interestingly enough, even that liability is probably close to zero as a direct result of SCO's current actions (not disclosing the source code, i.e. not doing everything in their power to alleviate so-called damages, thereby indicating rather strongly that the damages aren't significant. Again, there is a mountain of precident for this sort of thing...)
When it comes to trial, even if we all find out that Linux is infringing on SCO's IP, all the non-disclosure will have done is make the judge less likely to award damages to SCO.
No. The lack of disclosure will have made it impossible for the judge to award damages to SCO. Well, not impossible (a judge can do anything), but impossible for it to hold up on appeal. Again, the mountain of precident on that point is huge
IANAL, this is not legal advice, do your own research, yada yada yada.
The only reasonable explanation I have heard for the secrecy is that they can't substantiate any of their claims.
That is a reasonable explanation, but not the only one. A couple of others include
1) an agenda to spread FUD against Linux and free software, financed, perhaps even contracted by, an interested third party who wishes to keep their own hands clean (three guesses on who that might be).
2) minimal claims are valid, but SCOX and Darl et. al. can benefit much more financially by keeping the specifics ambiguous than they can by disclosing exactly how minor the infringement is.
Again, I think your explanation is the most likely: there is no infringement whatsoever. But there are a few other explanations that are just as reasonable, and nothing precluding several of them applying in parallel.
Regardless, and here is the bottom line: SCO's own behavior has precluded any liability for those using, deploying, developing, and reselling Linux, with the exception of IBM, who may have some liability based on a contractual technicality (but probably does not, as their IP attorneys are quite savvy and would have likly settled were that the case). All muttering and innendo to the contrary is nothing more than SCO produced FUD of the lowest order, quite possibly at the behest of (and certainly financed by) SUNW and MSFT.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks for that explanation.
Now what I am wondering is, even if it was not legal for Sequent/IBM to add the code to Linux, how can SCO sell a license to use that code with Linux if they don't even own it?
Maybe IBM and SCO are colluding (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM and SCO make it known that IBM is thinking of buying SCO. Instead, SCO sues IBM. SCO's stock price goes up. SCO's owners dump stock (getting rich) and SCO uses the inflated stock price to buy up small companies. Once SCO has all the pieces in place, IBM suddenly forces things into court and SCO is blown away. SCO stock plummets. *THEN* IBM buys them for a basement bargin price.
This does multiple things for IBM. (1) Publicity. (2) Good PR with the Linux crowd as IBM "saves the day". (3) They get more stuff in the SCO buyout. (4) It places IBM's competitors in the Linux arena on shaking ground while all this is happeneing, possibly forcing some out of business.
Suddenly, in the end, IBM has a Linux distro, AIX for the high-end, lots of other IP, and a rep as being the big champion for Linux that is willing to put its money where its mouth is.
Right about that time, IBM would be ready to take on Microsoft again for the servers and desktops. IBM gives away the desktop OS just to have an in and starts recapturing the mid-level servers. As IBM becomes the "leader" of Linux, why would you not go with IBM and AIX on the big iron since IBM makes it one smooth continuum of *nix?
Man, I have got to stop drinking 10 diet cherry cokes while on medicine for a head cold before I post. =)
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO's legal approach - derived work (Score:5, Interesting)
What constitutes a derived work is going to be the real copyright issue here. Outside the software arena, the notion of a derived work has been very broadly interpreted. Movies based on novels have been held to be derived works even when the connection between the two included little more than the title and the name of the lead character.
IBM has retained Cravath, Swaine, and Moore, probably the strongest litigation firm for difficult cases in the world. The Cravath approach on big cases is to put an army of lawyers on the problem and litigate everything to death. We'll probably see a detail-oriented litigation, rather than one based on broad principles. Following a Cravath lawsuit tends to be a mind-numbing experience for all concerned.
There is no such entity as Sequent-IBM (Score:3, Interesting)
If this press release were about only Sequent, it wouldn't make sense - there no longer is any Sequent. If this press realease were only about IBM, it woulnd't make sense - that press release went out months ago.
But since this press release is not about IBM or Sequent, but about "Sequent-IBM" it all makes sense, right?
SCO is really getting desperate (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, IBM addresses both the issue of the stock price manipulation and SCO's continued misrepresentation of the AIX license in their counterclaim. For SCO to continue to make these sorts of public statements is insane.
Re:The real game... (Score:1, Interesting)
Perhaps, but that hasn't stopped them.
> If they did, SCO would be able to get an injunction to shut down Linux users. In practice, SCO hasn't even been able to get an injunction against IBM and won't get a court hearing on its request to do that until 2005.
A preliminary injunction usually requires a bond to cover potential damage, should the injunction be later found done in error, at trial. How big do you think such a bond would have be to cover the potential damage of "stopping" linux? Trillions? Hundreds of Billions?
Whatever the number, SCO sure ain't got it.
> Meanwhile, a German court told SCO in June that it must stop threatening Linux users.
Laws differ. In some places you can make no public finding "of law" regarding a dispute until "the law" is decided in court. IANAG, but perhaps SCO must remain silent, even if they think they are dead-to-rights on the matter.
> And an Australian government agency is looking into charges that SCO is essentially running a shakedown racket by claiming that Linux users must buy a license they don't actually need.
Gernally speaking, Governmental agencies must "look into" all charges. UFO's in the back yard? Fed's zapping your brain with lasers? They don' have to "look" very hard, but they always "look into" things.
> And SCO's tactics don't make business sense, either. SCO is a software company that has slashed its R&D budget, alienated its customers and demolished the value of its brand. That's not the way you build a business.
Ok. Divide the remains, after lawyers, of a $3Bln settlement by the number of shares outstanding. Done.
> So, what do you do when you have no real business but your stock price keeps going up?
Again, do the division. What's a share worth? You're betting on the outcome of the case, nothing more.
What could they do to get IBM to switch sides (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course I have no evidence that even suggests anything along these lines, just that historically IBM have been one of the main "big evil corporations", and I'm not sure if they have changed completely. And the conspiracy theorist in me can't accept this whole fiasco is just a case of securities fraud.
Computer Associates 497 of Fortune 500 (Score:1, Interesting)
they just settled a lawsuit with the Canopy group with the no details disclosed.
do they run linux?
Re:Stock Statistics Like who bought! (Score:2, Interesting)
A few MS dot com instant millionaires per chance?
In my opinion, absolutely. In my experience, stocks are baught and sold by people who have a vested interest in the _FUTURE_ of a corporation. At this point, however, I'm pretty sure that noone who has any technological background would ever buy an SCO product again, or stock for that matter!
I hope the AG in New York is looking into this right now
As do I, but thus far it does seem as though anyone (Feds) are either a) looking into it and just keeping quiet to get as much dirt as they can before they blow the whistle
These dot com morons might get their ass kicked, would you hire an ex-SCO exec?
No, and I wouldnt ever buy an SCO product ever again. As I have stated above.
At least one thing is certain in my mind. Becuase SCO is so blatently gung-ho about destroying their public image, and showing that they care less about their Brand recognition than your average
Forensics (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm betting that SCO would not be smart enough to take the original Linux version, but would take a newish Linux version. Showing that Linux had older (less "good") versions and SCO did not would be evidence that SCO had taken the code from Linux, not vice-versa.
So assuming that the code base(s) change(s) significantly over time, determining the provenance of version-controlled code is not all that difficult. Think of it in biological terms -- we can identify the lineage of various species/specimens by comparing their DNA and their ancestors' DNA.
Development Methods... (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux is a registered trademark.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's an idea, maybe Linus can sue SCO for misuse of a registered trademark... None of their releases have given proper credit to Linus for the Linux REGISTERED name.
Also, he might be able to claim that their "OpenLinux" is too close to the Linux trademark...
Yes Virginia, Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Re:multiple licenses? (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO is claiming that the contract under which IBM got system V to develop AIX (and Sequent got system V to develop dynix) made the system V license viral like the GPL meaning the contract said "If you add anything to this, it must be licensed under the same system V license and you may not license that code/IP in any other way". Much like the GPL says "You can make changes but all changes must be licensed under the GPL, and this is the only way you can make and distribute changes". So depending on the wording of the contract and whatever "side letters" IBM may have from AT&T or Novell, this could be a valid claim, and if so would simply mean that some non-IBM developers would have to get the RCU, NUMA, and JFS specifications (IBM vigorously developed these things as "concepts" first and code later) and recreate the features from the white papers describing how the features work.