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 are.
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.
More...
