On TV.com: RUDOLPH vs. THE GRINCH: Vote Now
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 28 of 29:
Next »
« Previous
SCO vs. IBM...rdwhitti
Do you care to expand on that a little... you have left it wide open... do you really think that IBM is scrambling or possibly delaying this to mislead everyone into thinking that SCO is about to take a serious beating by Big Blue??? Can you elaborate on what is floating around in the "back of your mind" that is driving your suspicions? I would admit that I haven't seen all the evidence, but then again, SCO has been hard pressed to submit evidence that didn't get squashed under the pain-staking review of those others that have been indirectly involved in this. I do agree that this may be a long and arduous battle, but only because of the accusations made by SCO that will require some thought and serious investigation of all the facts. In other words, a painfully long process that should have been avoidable from the start but wasn't because of greed! They may be getting forced out of the market by the competition, but they're not going down without a very large bank account to live on.... I'm all for justice, but somehow this just seems frivolous and an undermined attempt to line their own pockets....
Posted by: dbradt@...   Posted on: 03/02/04 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
Click Here

SmartPlanet

Click Here