On CBS.com: Surivor Exclusive Secret Scenes
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 9 of 29:
Next »
« Previous
"Certainly SCO must have a case"
And there will be those who jump to this "news" as evidence of the validity of SCO's case. Actually, IBM said "go right ahead" last week.

Pursuant to DUCivR 7-1(b)(3), Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") submits the following response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleadings filed on February 4, 2004.

As will be set out in IBM's answer to plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint -- should the Court permit plaintiff to file it -- plaintiff's amended allegations are meritless. Nevertheless, and without conceding the grounds on which the amended pleadings are based, IBM does not oppose plaintiff's second motion for leave to amend, subject to IBM's right to move against the amended pleadings.

DATED this 19th day of February, 2004.

But let's have fun with this. After all, we don't have Howard Dean anymore.
Posted by: IT_User   Posted on: 02/27/04 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

(NT) Whatever happened to the "Put Up, or Shut Up" order from January?  Plain Logic | 02/27/04
SCO droped the part of the suit...........  nite_w0lf | 02/27/04
An effective way of dragging it out  IT_User | 02/27/04
You have it backward.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/28/04
Very true  NemesisNL | 02/28/04
bitty changes like the wind  NoB$ | 02/28/04
Hmmm... seems to be working  IT_User | 02/28/04
Must Be an Odd Monday...  BanjoPaterson | 03/01/04
"Certainly SCO must have a case"  IT_User | 02/27/04
subject to IBM's right to move against the amended pleadings.  nite_w0lf | 02/27/04
Maybe, and maybe not.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/28/04
An interesting sidenote  nite_w0lf | 02/27/04
Never ending story  OhMyGosh | 02/28/04
I don't agree with this  NoB$ | 02/28/04
IBM's code doesn't belong to SCO  dwjohnso | 02/28/04
in case you didn't know ... link  dwjohnso | 02/28/04
Three lawsuits?  k4_pacific | 02/28/04
As One Groklaw'er writes...  BanjoPaterson | 03/01/04
IBM - Classic Response  Chad_z | 02/29/04
DON'T COUNT SCO  V Sanders | 02/29/04
Baloney  Chad_z | 02/29/04
Of course that's literally true  IT_User | 02/29/04
Perhaps sooner  IT_User | 03/01/04
Must Be an Odd Monday...  BanjoPaterson | 03/01/04
(NT) This was a response to earlier thread...  BanjoPaterson | 03/01/04
testing 123  ScarryJerry | 03/01/04
SCO vs. IBM  rdwhitti | 03/01/04
SCO vs. IBM...rdwhitti  dbradt@... | 03/02/04
SCO  krolsen | 03/05/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Premier Vendor Content Whitepapers, webcasts & resources from our Power Center Sponsors
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here