News

Let’s catch up on all the filings in the bankruptcy. The US Trustee’s Office has filed two more motions regarding the SCO incentive bonuses. One says the US Trustee will file redacted and unredacted versions of its Objection, but in the event SCO loses its motion to seal, it would like the redacted parts made public. Here’s the meat of it:

7. As noted in the U.S. Trustee’s objection to the Seal Motion, the U.S. Trustee strongly disagrees with the Debtors’ request for relief made therein. Pending a hearing on the Seal Motion, however, the U.S. Trustee will file both a redacted copy of her objection to the Bonus Motion and an unredacted copy of the objection under seal. In the event that the Seal Motion is denied in whole or in part, the U.S. Trustee submits that it will be appropriate for this Court to consider whether all or part of the redacted portions of the U.S. Trustee’s objection to the Bonus Motion can be filed publicly.

The other motion is to limit who gets notice of the Motion to just the lawyers:

2. The U.S. Trustee requests that this Court limit notice of the Motion to the following parties: co-counsel to the Debtors, counsel to Novell, and counsel to IBM. Parties with a current
interest in the cases will receive electronic notification of the filing of the Motion. The U.S. Trustee submits that the proposed manner of notice is reasonable given the nature of the relief requested in the Motion.

As you see, while the US Trustee’s Office strongly opposes SCO’s request for confidentiality, it nevertheless respects the court’s right to decide what is and is not made public. Groklaw will do the same. The hearing on all this will be on April 2, so we don’t have long to wait. I have both motions for you as text. But first, there’s a notation in the docket in SCO v. Novell to tell you about:

Filed & Entered: 03/14/2008
Motions No Longer Referred
Docket Text: Motions No Longer Referred: [505]Sealed Motion is before Judge Kimball (jwt)

We’re getting close to the trial now in Utah, and as you recall the judge has scheduled summary judgment motions to be heard on the day after the trial begins, in a special carved out time on April 30. Magistrate judges hear pretrial motions, and that function is done.

This is a big win for Novell. Here’s a snip from the AP account:

The Supreme Court on Monday handed Microsoft Corp. a defeat by refusing to rule on the software giant’s request to halt an antitrust suit against it.

The suit was brought in 2004 by Waltham, Mass.-based Novell Inc., which said in court papers that Microsoft “deliberately targeted and destroyed” its WordPerfect and QuattroPro programs in order to protect its Windows operating system monopoly….

The Supreme Court’s decision allows Novell’s lawsuit to continue. The case is Microsoft Corp. v. Novell Inc., 07-924. Chief Justice John Roberts, who owns Microsoft stock, recused himself from the decision.

So, more antitrust woes for Microsoft. You can find the prior filings on Groklaw’s permanent Novell v. MS Timeline page. Here’s the Order [PDF] by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that the Supreme Court just left standing. The Supreme Court opinion is not posted, because it’s a refusal to hear the case, not an opinion, but here’s where Supreme Court opinions are posted, just so you know, and here’s where the refusals to hear a case, called summary dispositions, are posted, and you’ll find Microsoft listed on page 15 of this document[PDF]. If you forget, note that we have info on how to find courts on both our Courts page and our Legal Research page.

This is a case in part about standards and interoperability. Here’s Novell’s Complaint [PDF], and we have it as text, along with some analysis, here. With OOXML on the table, it’s very timely to read how Novell alleges Microsoft deliberately undermined interoperability, degraded standards, and withheld from competitors necessary technical documentation.

Oh, yummy. Here is SCO’s redaction of its Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell’s Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief [PDF].

I have only had a moment to read it quickly, but I confess that I’m a little disappointed. I thought it would be better than this. I doubt any old timers will be surprised. In a sentence, SCO argues that if SCO had no right to enter into the SCOsource license agreements, and if Novell didn’t approve SCOsource licensing, then Novell has no right to the money SCO got from SCOsource.

Uh huh. SCO logic, whereby all brain synapses fire in only one direction all the time — in service of the noble goal of making sure SCO keeps Novell from getting its money, while forcing Novell to spend buckets more on lawyers. So, who gets the money in SCOland? Guess. Microsoft and Sun, you silly wabbits. Who’d ya think?

Here’s SCO’s latest oeuvre, its Memorandum in Support of SCO’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell’s Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief [PDF], as text, all about how Novell shouldn’t get any money. Like SCO has standing to chip in ideas on what should happen to money that was never theirs to begin with. I think that’s an argument for Microsoft or Sun to make, after the Utah trial, depending on what Novell decides to do eventually.

I view it, frankly, as a frantic, if somewhat mean, act of despair. By that I mean, I doubt they’d have filed it, if they thought for a minute that their “UnixWare is just the latest UNIX System V” argument would fly. I am even wondering if they maybe read the Groklaw series on SCOsource, including the article where I quoted SCO’s CEO saying in December of 2003 that SCO wasn’t approaching UnixWare customers with SCOsource. I hope so. Maybe we can skip touching all the bases and get to the end game a trifle sooner. Not that SCO’s attorneys aren’t good at delay.

Might they have realized that their “UnixWare is just the latest UNIX” wasn’t likely to fly, so they dreamed up this latest motion? SCOsource, from all I see, clearly was primarily about Unix System V, and they are stuck with that history. So it’s back to hitting the law books. I think SCO researches backwards, though. Instead of looking up what the case law is, they look for some way to beat Novell. It’s not the same method at all. I loved the 1937 references, I must say. I’m questioning if SCO really wants to bring Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment to the court’s attention, though. It might cause the judge to have deep thoughts of his own.

By the way, Groklaw member rand noticed something that indicates that the first SCOsource offering SCO called ‘System V for Linux’, was indeed not about UnixWare. Not only that, but the UnixWare ELF SCO later claimed allowed it to sue people was dated 1990 anyway. Guess what that means? Hint. The APA was in 1995.

Class? Who can tell me if UnixWare copyrights passed to SCO in 1995? No? They didn’t? So SCO is sunk? I guess so. Tsk tsk. Well, life is hard.

Hello! The US Trustee’s Office has filed not one but two objections, an objection to the October incentive bonuses and a limited objection to the SCO request for a closed hearing about it:

398 -
Filed & Entered: 03/14/2008
Objection
Docket Text: Objection to Debtors’ Motion for a Determination that Incentive Bonuses for Quarter Ending October 31, 2007 were Paid in the Ordinary Course of Debtors’ Business and for Continuing Authority to Pay Ordinary Course of Business Incentive Bonuses (related document(s)[344] ) Filed by United States Trustee (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A — Wage Motion # (2) Exhibit B — Wage Order # (3) Exhibit C — Excerpt of 9/18/07 Transcript # (4) Certificate of Service) (McMahon Jr., Joseph)

399 -
Filed & Entered: 03/14/2008
Objection
Docket Text: Limited Objection to Debtors’ Motion to Present Evidence and Testimony Related to the Debtors’ 2007 Incentive Program Under Seal (related document(s)[345] ) Filed by United States Trustee (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service) (McMahon Jr., Joseph)

“11 U.S.C. Section 107 codifies the strong, compelling presumption of open access to judicial records and proceedings in civil matters,” the US Trustee tells the court. There are some exceptions to that in a bankruptcy, but SCO doesn’t fit into them, because SCO is a public company, and the SEC requires a public company to reveal the names of any insiders’ compensation, so “the Debtors’ argument lacks merit.” So, you don’t want to miss the hearing on this, for sure.

Update: We seem to have another case of redaction that isn’t altogether effective, so I’ve pulled the first PDF, #398, but we have the redacted document as text now, and frankly you can figure out the redaction from what’s left. I’ll put it back up if it turns out to be OK to do so. If someone could do a PDF with proper redaction, that’d be great.

Update 2: The low-tech way to fix it if one had the original would be to scan and file as an image. But there are other ways.
Judge David Nuffer in Utah’s blog includes unofficial info for attorneys on how to do it. Here’s a page he references on how to redact in Adobe 8, and there is a free trial offered here. And Adobe has a technical paper [PDF] that explains the why of it, why redaction sometimes fails in Word documents to PDF. In the past, we’ve cut out the redacted parts or covered them with paper fitting the redacted parts and then scanned and reconstructed the PDF. It’s harder if you try to do it after the fact, of course.

SCO’s new position is that UnixWare is just another interchangeable name for UNIX and that SCOsource was about UnixWare, not Unix System V, but here’s some more evidence that they are not the same thing and that SCOsource was primarily about UNIX System V. In this article, I’ll restrict myself to things SCOfolk used to say about what SCOsource was about. As you will see, before the Honorable Dale Kimball ruled in August that the UNIX copyrights didn’t pass from Novell to SCO, SCO said SCOsource was about UNIX System V source code. Now that it’s time to pay Novell for those System V licenses, SCO says they were really UnixWare licenses.

As I told you in the previous article, I didn’t have enough space to say everything in rebuttal in just that one article, and I’m still not done with this one.

This is a significant development. The Software Freedom Law Center has now published an analysis of Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise that it attaches to OOXML, and it finds that the promise provides no assurance for FOSS developers. One reason is because it can be revoked for future versions of specifications. It’s also inconsistent with the GPL and other Free Software licenses, and the promise is limited in scope, SFLC states. Hence, SFLC urges that OOXML not be approved as an ISO standard. It also “cautions GPL implementers not to rely on the OSP.” It’s not that the OSP is incompatible with the GPL in the sense that the terms and the GPL’s terms directly conflict. It’s that the OSP is inconsistent with the freedoms that the GPL guarantees.

The part about the promise’s limitation is particularly interesting:

The OSP covers any of the Covered Specifications, and Microsoft’s promise applies to “full or partial implementation,” according to its FAQ, but Microsoft also states:

The OSP does not apply to any work that you do beyond the scope of the covered specification(s).

This statement clarifies the qualification in the very first sentence of the OSP that the promise applies only “to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification.” The OSP will apply to implementations of the specifications, but only to the extent that such code is used to implement the specification. Any code that implements the specification may also do other things in other contexts, so in effect the OSP does not cover any actual code, only some uses of code. Free software is software that all users have a right to copy, modify and redistribute, and as Microsoft points out in the OSP, there is no sublicensing of rights under it. So any code written in reliance on the OSP is covered by the promise only so long as it is not copied into a program that does something other than implement the specification. This is true even if the code has not otherwise been modified, and code that conforms to the specification cannot be modified if the resulting modified code does not conform. Therefore the OSP doesn’t permit free software implementation: it permits implementation under free software licenses so long as the resulting code isn’t used freely.

In other words, I read that as saying that Microsoft says you can use it, but only in a very limited field of use defined by Microsoft, and only as long as you don’t use it the way Microsoft knows FOSS developers use code. Like their lawyers didn’t realize. Hardy har.

So, if and when Microsoft/Ecma/supporters try to tell you NBs any different, now you have this paper to rely upon. Please ask yourselves, if FOSS developers can’t use OOXML, in what way can it be called a standard? A standard Microsoft’s number one competition can’t safely use?

Here, thanks to Groklaw’s Steve Martin, is SCO’s Memorandum in Objection to Novell’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief [PDF] as text. There are so many tall tales to debunk, I won’t be able to do it in just one article. I’ll just address a few in brief, and I’ll elaborate and finish up in a later article.

Novell has already replied to this, by the way, and you can see how they rebut it, but I will amplify. Novell’s argument in a simple sentence is that “all Novell needs to show here is that SVRX was more than a ‘minor accompaniment’ to those licenses, which it plainly was.” And, Novell points out, SCOsource had to be about SVRX, and pre-APA SVRX code, to boot, because that is all SCO has ever listed in SCO v. IBM as having been allegedly infringed. How “incidental”, then, can it be?

But on top of that, SCO’s many arguments are easy to debunk, one by one. So let’s get started.

I have some news for you regarding the litigation against OLPC in Nigeria. It seems the litigation, ostensibly regarding an allegation of patent infringement, is based on an expired design registration.

The Registrar for Trade Marks, Patents & Designs at the Federal Ministry of Commerce and Industry has just sent OLPC Nigeria’s law firm, Kusamotu & Kusamotu, a letter [PDF] in response to an inquiry as to whether the inventors of the KONYIN keyboard had gotten an extension to their design registration or if it had expired. After investigation, the Registrar’s representative, Chinyerr Agbai, says that there is “no evidence of the extension of the Design in the Registry’s record” leading it to “conclude that the certificate of extension of Design does not exist.”

And yet the plaintiffs submitted a piece of paper that they swore was an extension. Is it a fraud, then? We’ll find out soon, because this new letter will be filed by OLPC Nigeria with the court shortly. That should be the ball game, but in a Nigerian court, it’s hard to predict outcomes.

There are two more documents from the BRM meeting available now on Alex Brown’s blog:

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/
open/0989_reference_docs.zip

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/
sc34/open/09891.pdf [PDF]

If you open the zip file and look at the document titled PT-62A2.doc and put it next to the Resolutions document [text], specifically Resolution 23, I think you’ll find that they
say, put together, that any applications wishing interoperability with OOXML in sound must use MP3. This is non-free, being patent-encumbered. If you go to Audiopeg.com, it tells us, “Audio MPEG is protected by a portfolio of patents covering a large number of countries.” Therefore, by my
reading, the proposed spec can’t be implemented in free software and in a backhanded way, the GPL has just been exiled again. What kind of standard is OOXML if the GPL, which is what Linux is licensed under, can’t freely interoperate? FOSS is a new factor that standards bodies simply must consider. It’s not like the old, proprietary days, when it was like a club, and everybody had similar business plans.

SCO has filed a sealed motion in the Utah case, asking, believe it or not, for “judgment on the pleadings on Novell’s claims for money or for declaratory relief” or, in the alternative, “for amendment of the scope of the trial”. I can’t wait to see the redacted version.

Judgment on the pleadings. In Utah. Like that will happen. They never run out of panache or crazy ideas to try, do they?

In the bankruptcy, SCO has filed an amended Schedule F [PDF]. Schedule F is the schedule of creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims. Here’s the original version of Schedule F [PDF], if you want to compare them, and I hope you do. Schedule F starts on page 7, and the last page of Schedule F is the first page of this continuation [PDF]. All the schedules are found here.

Alex
Brown has now posted instructions for national bodies, or NBs, who want to change their September votes, in a comment answering a question from Bob Sutor:

Bob Sutor
2008-03-06, 14:49
Alex,

Could you please list the explicit instructions that a national body should follow in order to let JTC1/ISO/IEC know that the country has changed its vote on OOXML/DIS 29500? Is it an online action or are they supposed to send email to someone? Thanks.

Bob Sutor
IBM…

Administrator (Alex Brown)
@Bob, I believe FAQ item 6.3 answers your question. There is more detail on the SC 34 Home Page. Note the deadline is midnight CET on 29 March 2008.
Alex

Sutor has posted the information also, and he adds this detail:

Keith Brannon mentioned to me in an email that it is essential that the person letting him know of a change in vote be an official designated national body representative and not someone else.

Yes, they can change their vote to No from Yes or Abstain.

Alex Brown has provided two documents from the BRM on OOXML on his blog. He got them from the open collection of documents published by ISO, another resource for us. You’ll find many other documents in that same collection.

One of the documents Brown has provided is an edited version of the notes from the meeting [PDF]. Obviously, that isn’t sufficient, since one has no way to know all that was edited out. The other is a list of the resolutions. Apart from wanting to see unexpurgated notes, and to listen to the audio reportedly made of the meeting, what is the most interesting from the documents, as Groklaw member PolR emailed me, is that even the edited notes confirm some details we’ve been reading. I think they also raise some procedural questions.

The hearing on Friday has been cancelled in the SCO bankruptcy, as it seems they’ve worked out the issues that were pending. The Order [PDF] says, “All matters have been resolved by the Court. The hearing has been cancelled.” That doesn’t mean that the issue about incentive bonuses has been cancelled. It’s been continued and will be heard at the April 2nd hearing, at 2 PM. Matters that are resolved without a hearing, with certifications of counsel, are:

1. the SCO Motion to Amend Order Authorizing Payment of Accrued Benefits and for Authorization to Pay Accrued Benefits to Employees Terminated After Entry of Order [Order as PDF], and

2. SCO’s Motion for Order Establishing a Bar Date for Filing Proofs of Claim [Order as modified - PDF].

No one objected, even to the latter, which surprises me, but it is what it is. The judge modified the submitted proposed order [PDF], changing the deadline from April 10 to April 21, so evidently there were either informal negotiations and discussions, or the judge himself made the change. It makes no sense to me that any deadline be set before the Novell trial is over, and it doesn’t begin until April 29, because we won’t know until after the trial what assets SCO might still have, unless the judge is foreshadowing that he intends to approve the new proposed deal. The third possibility is that no one is paying much attention to lesser details. And, in other filings, of course, the lawyers get their fees.

The ISO folk have put out a press release about how wonderful the BRM worked out and what happens next. However, it tells us little people to stay out. Here’s the operative language:

The BRM was not intended to be a public event but followed the orderly and inclusive process of ISO and IEC. With the BRM review completed, it is now up to national bodies to determine whether approval of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 is warranted.

So much for an open standard. I have a question for the ISO. Have all prior meetings been run like this? In the deepest shade you can find? You know they have not, and I know they have not.

So, how about letting us listen to audio of the meeting, so we can compare claims now coming from all sides? There are so many different accounts, and they don’t all sync up. Given that this format, if accepted, will impact us little people, not just a bunch of vendors, how about letting us in enough to make it at least possible to figure out who is telling the truth?

Hey, EU Commission. Did you know that there is reportedly audio made of the BRM meeting?

Groklaw’s Sean Daly had an opportunity to meet Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist at Google, at OpenForum Europe last week. Mr. Cerf, known as the Father of the Internet because of being the co-designer with Robert Kahn of TCP/IP protocols and the basic architecture of the Internet, was gracious enough to answer some email questions Sean propounded regarding the future of the Internet, standards in general, and OOXML in particular. Like many others this week, Cerf has been giving the standards process considerable thought, and he concludes in connection with OOXML that “Internet users deserve better
handling of global Internet standards.”

Standards Malaysia has now issued a statement [PDF] regarding the BRM. The title says it all, “Malaysian delegation at the ISO meeting in Geneva (25 - 29 Feb ‘08) finds the technical issues in the draft standard OOXML unresolved satisfactorily”.

They were there. And they contradict the stories being put out by those in charge and by Microsoft. They did *not* have the opportunity to have their concerns addressed totally. Malaysia voted to disapprove the undiscussed bulk dispositions, although they had earlier voted to approve some dispositions that were discussed. Most of their concerns were never discussed:

“Malaysia had submitted 23 comments and more than 70% of them were not addressed satisfactorily by Ecma’s proposed dispositions. We intended to resolve these technical issues at the BRM, but we could only raise 2 concerns due to the time constraints imposed,” Fadilah said.

The press release says that after three days of trying, it became clear that there was insufficient time to address all the dispositions, and so the idea was presented to just vote on items without discussion:

“Malaysia decided to vote ‘Disapprove’ to these undiscussed issues,” Fadilah elaborated, “The limitation of the BRM process clearly showed that such a task of approving this draft standard does not fit in the Fast Track process employed by Ecma International. Malaysia and other country delegations worked very hard which extended into evenings after the BRM sessions. All the technical experts from diverse backgrounds, including from Microsoft, the original proposer of the Draft, put their heads together to fix the specification. Malaysia approved the counter proposals by many National Bodies which were discussed during the BRM. Unfortunately there were just far too many to fix within the given time.”

I don’t think it took three days to figure out that there was insufficient time to discuss all the dispositions. I think the evidence indicates that it was anticipated and planned for. To fully comprehend the story, you need to read the rules. Here’s the page where you can find the rules regarding the Fast Track process. The one that I think is the right one is ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 3.0. When I read them, I read that only P-members can vote, and I also read that voting should ideally never happen at a BRM, that the preferred method is discussion leading to consensus. Only if consensus can’t be reached is voting contemplated, and then only P-members vote. If no consensus is possible, the convenor terminates the Fast Track process. The P-members didn’t reach consensus on the undiscussed dispositions. Yet, we do not see a shut down. What’s up with that? And now what? I looked into the appeals process, and I’ll show you what I found.

Here is SCO’s Debtors’ Joint Plan of Reorganization [PDF], as text. There’s an Exhibit A [PDF], the Memorandum of Understanding, but we have that as text already.

Here’s an interesting clause, in the definitions section:

“Causes of Action” means, except as provided otherwise in the Plan, the Confirmation Order or any document, instrument, release or other agreement entered into in connection with the Plan, all Claims, actions, choses in action, causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, controversies, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, third-party claims, counterclaims and cross claims (including, but not limited to, any Avoidance Actions, the IBM Litigation, Novell Litigation, Autozone Litigation

and the Red Hat Litigation) that are or may be pending on the Effective Date or instituted by the Debtor(s) after the Effective Date against any Person based on law or equity, including, but not limited to, under the Bankruptcy Code, whether direct, indirect, derivative, or otherwise and whether asserted or unasserted, known or unknown.

I take this one of two ways. You could understand this to mean that they expect more folks to sue SCO than already have. But, you must also read it as a pretty big hint that SCO may have persuaded the money folks that SCO can still go after AutoZone, based on its migration from OpenServer to Linux, and other end users of Linux, based on OpenServer header files and any code Santa Cruz or Caldera wrote after the APA in 1995 for UnixWare or OpenServer.

Having researched that very question in some detail, I think any such attempt will fail miserably, but hope springs eternal. And it could all be bluffing too. It is after all SCO. There’s some water under that bridge.

SCO has now filed its
Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization [Part 2, both PDFs], along with a
Disclosure Statement [PDF]. The hearing is set for April 2. Also they have filed a
Motion for Authority to Pay an Expense Reimbursement to York Capital Management [PDF]. SCO seems to be having a ball distributing all the money they can prior to the Utah trial in April. They are so bold. That’s what makes them so fun to watch.

Here’s why SCO wants to pay York. They have a *moral* duty, they feel. Did you ever expect ‘SCO’ and ‘moral’ to show up in the same sentence? I confess I did not. I think we can now say that we’ve seen everything:

4. SCO believes that as a business and moral matter SCO should make the $50,000 payment to York under the Term Sheet (which it did finalize) or the $150,000 payment to York under the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement (which was virtually completed at the time SCO and York abandoned the transaction.

Don’t you love it? Wait. Don’t the executives have to do what’s best for the everlovin’ shareholders? And I thought York only got paid if the deal actually happened. Say, speaking of asset purchase agreements, Novell probably feels SCO has a business and moral obligation — nay, a legal duty, forsooth — to pay Novell for license fees SCO agreed to pay under an earlier APA that was actually signed in a deal that was actually finalized in all particulars.

An Interview with Andrew Updegrove
by Sean Daly, Geneva February 26, 2008 [ Audio - Ogg]

Q: This is Sean Daly, reporting for Groklaw, I’m in Geneva for the OpenForum Europe conference, and I’m seated here with Andy Updegrove [bio]. Thank you very much for being with us today.

Andy Updegrove: My pleasure.

Q: Now, I just wanted to talk a little bit, in reaction to your presentation this morning, which I found very interesting, one or two other questions. Well, I think it’s very clear that you are worried, you said this morning “deeply troubled”, about the standards process surrounding OOXML. You talked about the “smoke-filled room”. What are your concerns today?

Andy Updegrove: Well, I think, first of all, just by way of background for people that aren’t familiar with the standards process, ISO/IEC is an organisation that has been around for about sixty years and has a highly evolved process that is utilized for creating standards of many, many, many, many types. Everything from mining to information technology. And, the first point to make is that it’s a one-size-fits-all process. The second point to make is that standards, for many, many years, were set in a rather genteel and collegial setting, and in large part they still are. IT is unusual in part because it is so patent-laden. Many, many, many other types of standards have little or no patent exposure at all. So, I could go on, but suffice it to say that there are a number of differences between the ITC — Information and Communications Technology — space, and many of the other settings in which standards are set and virtually all of those in which the standards-setting process, is conducted in these organizations, was originally created.

So, one of the… the last thing I’ll mention is that standards historically have not been anywhere near as strategic as this standard is, and outside of IT, a strategic standard is more of the exception rather than the rule, particularly when it comes to patent relationships. So, what we have seen in the current scenario is a number of places where the traditional standards-setting infrastructure, as compared to consortia, which operate under different rules and different realities and are somewhat more able to cope — we’re dealing with a process that really wasn’t created to operate for this kind of standard and under this kind of stress.