On CBS MoneyWatch: Who Does the Most College Drinking?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 18 of 19:
Next »
« Previous
The claim they didn't know.
SCO's lame claim is they didn't know the infringing code was in the release.
Of course we all know that ignorance is no excuse.
And they would have to be very ignorant if they were distributing "millions" of lines of their own IP (as they claim) and didn't know it.
Posted by: jpfitz@...   Posted on: 01/14/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

If SCO wants to publish, Why not start with details on what IP was stolen ?  Plain Logic | 01/13/04
Forget details....  doe_z | 01/13/04
Lame issue  Mike Cox | 01/13/04
Doesn't look good for Novell.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/13/04
Wasn't 1/12/04 the court's imposed "Put up or shut up" date for SCO ???  Plain Logic | 01/13/04
The Judge Gave The Order On Dec.05.03  afterbrnr | 01/13/04
Any "facts" to back up your opinion, Bit?  dscherf | 01/13/04
News release. Bitty is Darl's other brother.  NoB$ | 01/13/04
Why not?  MarcB_z | 01/14/04
Not that it helps SCO... But..  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/14/04
Huh?  bgoss@... | 01/14/04
Doesn't Look Good for SCO.  Plain Logic | 01/13/04
Re: Those who back SCO will also suffer.  Eggs Ackley_z | 01/14/04
Who will suffer?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/14/04
business as usual  NemesisNL | 01/14/04
Legal actions required - to clear up  Chris.Papoudaris@... | 01/14/04
It doesn't matter  NemesisNL | 01/14/04
The claim they didn't know.  jpfitz@... | 01/14/04
Schedule 6.3 "Change of Control" missing  jfalknor | 01/22/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement