|
|
|
|
||
Why SCO could not have known about RCU in DynixIn [960], Memo in Opposition to IBM's Motion for PSJ on SCO's Contract Claims, p. 176, SCO states: "IBM presents no evidence that SCO knew or should have known that, subsequent to the non-public 1993 patent application, the RCU described therein was incorporated into Sequent's UNIX flavor. In contrast, SCO has procued evidence showing that the incorporation of RCU intu Dynix or Dynix/pts was not a well-known fact, even in the computer industry. (Ex. 139, par. 48-50). We do not have a copy of exhibit 139, but one suspects it is not a copy of "Read-Copy Update: Using Execution History to Solve Concurrency Problems" by McKenney and Slingwine, presented at the "Parallel and Distributed Computing and Systems" conference in Las Vegas, 1998, in which they state: "Our implementation of the read-copy update uses quiescent-state counters. An SMP version has been in production i Sequent Dynix/ptx since 1994." http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/rclockpdcsproof.pdf |
return to message board, top of board |
Msg # | Subject | Author | Recs | Date Posted |
21196 | Re: Why SCO could not have known about RCU in Dynix | karl_w_lewis | 15 | 2/17/2007 8:23:01 AM |