On The Insider: Tom Brady Knows Baby's Gender
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 5 of 29:
Next »
« Previous
Very true
I think IBM understands that the actions by SCO are not going to look to good in the court case. The dropped substantial parts of the original claim and added other claims. IBM would probably have been in court for a much longer time had they blocked this amendment. Now they get the benefit of continuing this case without having to wonder about seperate courtcases. They also, as I said, have the benefit of apearance. I can't believe the judge will look favourably on SCO dropping substantial parts of the case while they are still threatning end users of linux. Also the GPL part will come into play directly after a win by sco in this case. Even when IBM is convicted SCO will still have to show how they could have been distributing a linux distro under GPL while knowing that parts of that distro where in breach of their IP. I think SCO has no where to go with this but downhill. It wouldn't be that bad to get a ruling on the legitemacy of the GPL liscence. If the GPL were to be upheld in court that would put a lot of speculation about this liscence to rest once and for all. The suggestion by SCO that they didn't know they were distributing under GPL will be a difficult thing to proove in court. How can you distribute a linux distro without having a decent understanding what distributing under GPL means?

I think this was a smart move by IBM. It at least sugests that IBM has a "bring it on" attitude and is pretty sure about it's case.
Posted by: NemesisNL   Posted on: 02/28/04 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
advertisement
  • Smart Tech Expert advice on innovations in healthcare and the green technologies that make it happen. Find out more
  • Smart Business Discussion and advice on management issues that revolve around making your world smarter and more useful. More Smart Advice
  • Smart People The best and worst moves in the management and strategy trenches. Learn More