On mySimon: The Biggest Box Sets
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 46 of 55:
Next »
« Previous
Gross misstatement with a dash of truth...
You should read the filing No_Axe. In fact, IBM spends a good third of the document showing that:

1) None of SCO's code is in Linux.
2) None of the SCO code that is in AIX is in Linux.
3) The only code that is in AIX and Linux is owned by IBM.

The last of these is shown by IBM by filings of depositions from the principles of the original AIX contract negotiation from all three parties (IBM, AT&T, and Sequent). All parties had the understanding that code that was written by AT&T could not be disclosed, but code written by the signatores or licensed by them outside of that AT&T code could be disclosed. This is unequivocated in all the principles understanding and was later republished as applying to all AT&T licensees in the "Echo" newsletter by AT&T.

Since the guiding law of the IBM and Sequent contracts are under the laws of the State of New York; the original understanding of those signing the contract takes precedence (NY law). SCO is therefore estopped promissorily from changing the agreement from that original understanding. SCO's mind doesn't matter in this, because NY law controls and NY law says no matter what is written, the unambiguous statements of the signatores takes precedence.

IBM has woven a very tight web to have these four issues dismissed. I'll be surprised if they weren't dismissed. Will the dismissal of those four issues dismiss the whole case? No, because there are still 6 other SCO issues and 10 other IBM issues to be considered. And even then there are appeals.

So I partially agree with you on the outcome: I claim these points will be dismissed, but I agree the case will not. I also believe you oversimplify what IBM said in their brief. I wouldn't mind your oversimplification, except that I know you'll scream that this is a travesty of justice when those bones of contention are burned by the judge and set smouldering aside.

Really, you should read the source material. If you won't download it from the courts; you can pay any number of services or are free to download for zero-cost from Groklaw.net.
Posted by: John Le'Brecage   Posted on: 08/17/04 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

Call a priest...  Fred Fredrickson | 08/16/04
Your hero today...  balsover | 08/17/04
We already have one...  techboy_z | 08/17/04
Go IBM, Go !!! . . . . . . . . To SCO: "Hasta la vista, baby"  Plain Logic | 08/16/04
Hey, Don!  Yagotta B. Kidding | 08/16/04
Imagine that, your wrong again.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
So is it true?  Laff | 08/17/04
Many seem to think so....  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
Difficult times ahead for Linux...  Mike Cox | 08/16/04
Good one  swoopee | 08/16/04
I can't believe it!  spammyman | 08/16/04
There is one true OS  techboy_z | 08/17/04
Thanks for the laugh!  luke_sg | 08/16/04
Upgrade  in-DUH-vidual | 08/17/04
Yeah, OK  intellectualproperty | 08/17/04
Mike's Linux Theory  Yehuda Mann | 08/17/04
That is funny...  MG_z | 08/17/04
WOOOOSH!!!!!  James T. Kirk | 08/17/04
Absolutely correct!. Give that man a cigar!  bhanes@... | 08/17/04
Linux not the problem...  ECLS | 08/17/04
Cox....You're a scream  shawkins | 08/17/04
That could not have been a serious post.  balsover | 08/17/04
I suppose that your MSCE's can handle...  The King's Servant | 08/17/04
If you've seen overwhelming evidence ...  mlybbert | 08/17/04
SCO..Sorry Chapter 11 re-Organization  Laff | 08/17/04
Interesting from a couple of points.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
2.5  sa_z | 08/17/04
Aren't they saying something to the effect that  Laff | 08/17/04
No disagreement from me.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
Related issue, yes, already in court  mlybbert | 08/17/04
Not he said/she said.....They (AT&T) said.  aladorn@... | 08/17/04
Yes, Mr. Wilson is part of the "he said".  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
That's true but....  AmusedAtItAll | 09/02/04
When they drop it, can we take a picture?  Xunil_Sierutuf | 08/17/04
Or yours?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
No one argues they didn't do it....  doe_z | 08/17/04
I beleive that the court will drop the case  balsover | 08/17/04
You mean like Sun, IBM, Oracle, Sony, Apple, etc...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
Well to be fair...those others you listed do try  Laff | 08/17/04
You mean like Apple suing Real?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
Has Apple sued REAL or only threatened to?  Laff | 08/17/04
Is that happening?  voska | 08/17/04
Not even vaguely  IT_User | 08/17/04
No, more like MS  tic swayback | 08/17/04
Agree: "when a company needs to use attorneys ..."  mlybbert | 08/17/04
Gross misstatement with a dash of truth...  John Le'Brecage | 08/17/04
John, you misunderstand.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/18/04
Response about those couple of points  mlybbert | 08/17/04
Agreement not intended for homegrown code  dwjohnso | 08/17/04
IBM strikes at SCO claims  farson@... | 08/17/04
A lesson to be learned...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
Only SCO argues....  doe_z | 08/17/04
Partial agreement  mlybbert | 08/17/04
*Finally* ZDnet admits SCO is "faltering"  CobraA1 | 08/18/04
SCO leave IBM alone  FilledOut | 08/18/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads