On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 4 of 83:
Next »
« Previous
Keep up with the program...
A suit is an accusation. An accusation until proven is little more than innuendo. IBM has asserted that there is so much innuendo with no proof that the copyright and license infringement portions of the SCO Group's suit should be summarily judged and tossed.

Your question though, Axe, presumes guilt by implication. For example: tomorrow, Axe, someone can go down to the courthouse and file a personal slander suit against you. That suit would be meaningless of course, but the law doesn't require that they prove in order to file. They could haul you into court, legally say what they believe to be true, tell the media again and again their innuendo, show what they believe to be malice on your part, take your life apart to show they're right, but in the end you could have the suit tossed. Meanwhile, could not every poster on ZD-Net ask unfairly, "By the way, isn't that No_Axe guy being sued for slander?" with the implication that you should neither be believed, trusted, nor read?

Would not you then find the question grossly presumptive and unfair? Even in the hypothetical? We cannot presume any responsibility on IBM's part merely because they have been accused.
Posted by: John Le'Brecage   Posted on: 08/04/04 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

Well DUH!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
Note the qualification  rapson | 08/04/04
Two good points.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
Keep up with the program...  John Le'Brecage | 08/04/04
OUCH!  bchesmer | 08/05/04
Dont use logic with AX  sa_z | 08/05/04
This wouldn?t have anything to do with?  B.O.F.H. | 08/04/04
Whatever you say BOFH, run along now.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
Yet...  Martin Marvinski | 08/04/04
Anybody know what NWOR means?  GregSalts | 08/05/04
NWOR  WhoIsDaMan | 08/05/04
I believe not.  John Le'Brecage | 08/04/04
You're Missing Something Here  BanjoPaterson | 08/05/04
Infringment  rkadowns | 08/04/04
IBM has so many patents  balsover | 08/04/04
Aye true  AriB_z | 08/04/04
Kudos to IBM  Tim Patterson | 08/04/04
Wonderful stuff  seosamh_z | 08/04/04
I don't think that was an ABM post, but rather  Laff | 08/04/04
Once again, though,  rapson | 08/04/04
Not hard to figure out Carl  Tim Patterson | 08/04/04
Come the glorious day  seosamh_z | 08/04/04
But...  rapson | 08/04/04
Linux sells some IBM hardware and services.  B.O.F.H. | 08/04/04
To BOFH: Exactly!  rapson | 08/05/04
Globally??? You mean like Munich Germany.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
The pulled the plug due to applications in question, not Linux!  B.O.F.H. | 08/04/04
You're funny  seosamh_z | 08/04/04
I read it as well  IT_User | 08/04/04
Good for you  seosamh_z | 08/04/04
Okay, so where's the ABM diatribe?  Jay Cash | 08/04/04
To Jay  seosamh_z | 08/04/04
That's one view, I can give 57 BILLION others.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
Nope..  Tim Patterson | 08/04/04
More than enough, trust me...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
One will suffice  Jay Cash | 08/04/04
57 Billion to lose really  voska | 08/04/04
Your right.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
And what was the profit line on AT&T in 1965?  Jay Cash | 08/04/04
The more they then more for lawyers  voska | 08/05/04
Attacking Linux  alterego_z | 08/04/04
Whoops..  d_jedi | 08/04/04
Copyright versus Patent  vferrara | 08/04/04
Ouch  FilledOut | 08/06/04
Patents- the new commerce business model.  el1jones | 08/04/04
Nope  d_jedi | 08/04/04
I've got a patent for the letter A-Z in both upper  Laff | 08/04/04
I can beat that!  Martin Marvinski | 08/04/04
Thinking of Patents now patented  GregSalts | 08/05/04
Please explain  d_jedi | 08/04/04
Whoops..  d_jedi | 08/04/04
Has MS ever sued someone over patents?  balsover | 08/04/04
Not once...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
They Will  Oscar_Goldman | 08/04/04
Then so will IBM  rapson | 08/04/04
IBM has used patents suits, MS never has.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
Software patents?  WhoIsDaMan | 08/05/04
IBM patent suits  20075880200550981536805084989909-zdavis | 08/05/04
Which fits the "self-defense" category (NT)  WhoIsDaMan | 08/05/04
Hmm..  d_jedi | 08/04/04
Only "IF" those can be proven to be valid, and  Laff | 08/04/04
You are exactlly 100% wrong!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
you are exactly 100% redundant! (nt)  eLurker | 08/04/04
Bitty, bitty  nomorems | 08/04/04
And you are wrong of course.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
No  Jay Cash | 08/04/04
Hmmm....  bchesmer | 08/05/04
I did my reading  johnnyu | 08/05/04
Re:Only "IF" those can be proven to be valid, and  d_jedi | 08/04/04
IBM pledges no patent attacks against Linux  Loverock Davidson | 08/04/04
You mean like if...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
No_Ax vs IBM  Chad_z | 08/04/04
Careful, he whines to ZDNET to get your posts pulled.  Xunil_Sierutuf | 08/04/04
Who does?  Martin Marvinski | 08/04/04
Ah, blame anyone but yourself huh?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
Only a zealot see's it that way.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/04/04
And the winner is  seosamh_z | 08/04/04
They will  Oscar_Goldman | 08/04/04
I Agree  AriB_z | 08/04/04
Bad for the US  bugmenot00 | 08/05/04
Nope  johnnyu | 08/05/04
Shutting down open source  Anton Philidor | 08/06/04
Fire Ants  Ole Man | 12/07/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here