SCO suit

Sam Pikesley samdavidpikesley at
Tue Jun 24 13:05:29 BST 2003

But it's still FUD, as exposed here:

this one's pretty good, too:

I get the impression that SCO thought that IBM would
just pay up to make them go away. And when IBM said
'Get stuffed', SCO started lashing out at anything
that looks remotely like UNIX.

Either that, or one of their 'expert lawyers' has seen

      for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)

in both the Linux source and the SCO source and
concluded that they've been robbed...

--- Paul Richards <paul at> wrote: >
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
> > 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
> main).
> 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.
> -- 
> Paul. 

Those who do not learn from Dilbert are doomed to repeat it

Want to chat instantly with your online friends?  Get the FREE Yahoo!

More information about the Ukfreebsd mailing list