| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
...and if SCO is right...?...and if SCO is right...?Posted May 16, 2003 20:02 UTC (Fri) by dkite (guest, #4577)Parent article: ...and if SCO is right...?
I'll make a wild prediction:
(Log in to post comments)
...and if SCO is right...? Posted May 17, 2003 4:41 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Derek,Yes, the previous Unix battle was settled. ATT paid the University of California's court costs so that the University would not counter sue them. The important point is that Mighty ATT lost the lawsuit to the BSD developers. Here's my bet. This will be over much faster than you expect. Bruce
...and if SCO is right...? Posted May 19, 2003 17:16 UTC (Mon) by llywrch (guest, #9903) [Link] > This case will not be settled in court in my lifetime.I would disagree with your assertion were it not for the words ``in court." Because after having thought about this possibility all weekend, if the SCO group were actually right, IBM would respond in the same manner it is currently: grind the oponent down with legal motions & maneuvers until they run out of money. And since it's been a few years since either SCO or Caldera made a profit, that's only a matter of time. They could sell the rights to the case to someone else with deeper pockets, but the question then turns on just how much money would the suit yield, & would it justify the initial investment. And I'm not convinced that Microsoft (for example) would be willing to spend tens of millions of dollars -- or more -- just to cast doubts on status of the intellectual property surrounding Linux. The chief challenge for IBM is whether the SCO Group can actually pull their license to the UNIX code in June. There is a weakness in the SCO Group's claim that just occured to me, one no one else seems to have mentioned: The original license most likely had a clause that stated it would be enforced by the laws of the state AT&T decided -- probably either Delaware (a favorite of many large US corporations) -- or AT&T home state, which could be New Jersey. But in eithr case, the state of Utah does not have jurisdiction to let the SCO Group revoke the license. That should be a slam-dunk for IBM. The SCO Group will then try to refile in the proper jurisdiction, & maybe then be able to revoke IBM's license. They may try to communicate to IBM that they will remain a thorn in Big Blue's side until they settle. However, IBM has been demonstrating the wisdom that if one doesn't fight nuisence suits like these as they arise, then more will spring up. So in short, the case will probably end in our lifetime, when the SCO Group gone out of business & its management become pariahs. And we should know if this is so by the middle of next month. Geoff
...and if SCO is right...? Posted May 20, 2003 12:56 UTC (Tue) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] Unix has changed ownership a few times since AT&T owned it - first Novell, then the original SCO, and now the new SCO (originally called Caldera). I would guess that all Unix licenses have been updated to account for each change of ownership, so the jurisdiction issue is unlikely to help. Of course, I'm not a lawyer...
...and if SCO is right...? Posted Jun 7, 2003 1:12 UTC (Sat) by mcbridematt (guest, #10302) [Link] And what if Unix code is in NetWare? Novell might be saying something, but in a careful manner so SCO doesn't think Unix code is in NetWare.
|
|
||||||||||||