"Let's correct some facts and assumptions in Dr. Gary Pisano's
Expert Report on behalf of SCO in the SCO v. Novell trial, shall
we? Why? First, it's fun. Geek fun, granted, but that is who we
"Second, I see what I view as mistakes, and I surely don't want
people to be confused or for errors to go down in history
unanswered. If the testimony is excluded, which is the relief that
Novell is asking the court for, it won't be answered in the trial.
So, for historians, and for our own enjoyment, here is Groklaw's
answer to the expert report of Dr. Gary Pisano, part 1.
"Feel free to meaningfully and politely respond to his report in
your comments, and I'll glean everything, add my own 2 cents, and
we'll do a second, color-coded version of the report, with our
rebuttal interspersed. To aid us I've done as text Novell's
memorandum in support of its motion for a Daubert hearing to
disqualify Dr. Pisano (not just some of his testimony), and then
Exhibit A, his submitted report, and a snip from his deposition, in
which he tries to say an online survey he didn't do is reliable
because Laura DiDio of Yankee Group did it. It's also why SCO would
be wise not to oppose this motion. I'm sure the Novell lawyers
would make mincemeat of him, should he take the stand, because
although he is apparently an expert on business administration,
what he doesn't know about Linux and Unix is a lot, by my reading,
unless he is selectively cherry picking only materials that match
SCO's story. So, let's assume good faith and help him out."