SCO suit

Paul Richards paul at
Tue Jun 24 12:26:41 BST 2003

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:05:46AM +0100, Sam Pikesley wrote:
> Except that then the lawyers who now appear to be in
> sole charge of the S**t Creek Organization say things
> like this:
> which is a load of FUD, of course, and I doubt this
> guy knows System V from a hole in the ground, but FUD
> tends to stick...

Well, actually Chris Sontag is a SCO Senior VP and not a lawyer.

Notice that SCO is talking about contracts, not copyrights,
intellectual property or licenses, but contracts (at least in the

I've no idea what the original AT&T contracts said, or what the
AT&T/Berkeley settlement said or what SCOs contract with IBM says.
There's therefore no way of knowing whether SCO has a case or not
for breach of contract, but given that David Boies has been appointed
I'd be surprised if there was no meat to the accusations at all.

I'm also not surprised that IBM thinks that SCO doesn't have a
case, that's often the situation when two parties disagree over
the meaning of a contract, and ultimately the interpretation will
probably be decided by a judge.


More information about the Ukfreebsd mailing list