Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
IBM-SCO Group Squabble over Linux System Extends Even to Court Calendar (SL Tribune)
The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the delay of the hearing that will look at whether SCO has answered IBM's questions. "If [Judge] Wells finds sufficient evidence to support SCO's claims, a trial is expected in spring 2005. If she rules for IBM, SCO's lawsuit would be derailed and its recently launched, potentially lucrative global campaign to sell licenses to corporate Linux users also could flop."
(Log in to post comments)
IBM-SCO Group Squabble over Linux System Extends Even to Court Calendar (SL Tribune) Posted Jan 25, 2004 3:15 UTC (Sun) by Eudyptes (guest, #15589) [Link] "SCO spokesman Blake Stowell, whose company seeks up to $50 billion indamages from Big Blue over alleged incorporation of proprietary Unix code into the latest versions of Linux, contends the postponement to Feb. 6 'was mutually agreed upon by IBM and SCO.'" So, ok. Maybe I haven't been follow SCO as closely as I thought. What I mean is they started at $1 billion, then jumped to $3 billion. But when did the $50 billion price tag happen? If the ruling goes against SCO it most likely will find itself in an ackward position. All those legal fees for not? Not to mention a very potential market hit. Which is what seems to the real underpinnings of anything SCO does.
IBM-SCO Group Squabble over Linux System Extends Even to Court Calendar (SL Tribune) Posted Jan 25, 2004 4:50 UTC (Sun) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Also, SCO previously claimed that IBM asked for the extension.Don't bother looking for consistancy problems in SCO's statments.
IBM-SCO Group Squabble over Linux System Extends Even to Court Calendar (SL Tribune) Posted Jan 25, 2004 13:05 UTC (Sun) by scherbis (subscriber, #4434) [Link] It was $3 billion in the original lawsuit. I believe thought that once SCO revoked IBM's AIX license and IBM ignored them, that SCO thinks they are entitled to damages for every week that IBM continues to sell/support AIX. By the time the trial gets here, if it does, I think I've heard SCO say that IBM will have to pay them over $200 Billion. This is probably one reason that the stock is still attractive to the investment community. Of course since they first said this, Novell and their license stance has become public and SCO's position looks weaker than ever.Steve
IBM-SCO Group Squabble over Linux System Extends Even to Court Calendar (SL Tribune) Posted Jan 25, 2004 16:55 UTC (Sun) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] > If the ruling goes against SCO it most likely> will find itself in an ackward position. I think it's pretty clear by now that this thing is an end-game, for SCO. It either wins big, or whatever remains if it loses will be sold off to the creditors, probably basically its lawyers by then, for debts outstanding. IOW, there won't be any of it left to find itself in an awkward position. That's why it can get away with some of the ridiculous claims it makes.. there's nothing there to lose anymore. It's playing with its last chips, betting the company, literally. Again, look at the financials as reported here, linking to Groklaw. They say as much -- the company is sacrificing what it had for computer products, threatening its own customers, dog rabid, gone wild. This is it, folks, there IS nothing else. That's what Darl's been famous for, and that's how he's playing his cards here. No surprise, that. Duncan
IBM-SCO Group Squabble over Linux System Extends Even to Court Calendar (SL Tribune) Posted Jan 26, 2004 5:27 UTC (Mon) by Grokker (guest, #18961) [Link] You are correct.SCO started at $1B, then upped the damages to $3B. The $50B number for damages never appeared in a legal document. The $50B number is based on an interview that Darl gave in October in France where he stated that SCO estimated losing about $1B/week in potential revenue based on their estimate of IBM's AIX sales. This was shortly after SCO had announced the revokation of IBM's AIX license and SCO figured they were owed ALL $$ that IBM took in from AIX sales and service since the date of revokation. This reasoning was a follow-on to their conclusion that IBM was not authorized to sell AIX going forward due to SCO's revokation of the IBM AIX license. SCO was calculating $50B/year based on $1B/week based on 'illegal' sales of AIX from July/August 2003(?) to Apr 2005 court date. Of course our understanding has changed since that October interview in France. Since then, Novell has made many letters and other documents between themselves and both old and new SCO public, including the original Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) where Novell sold the UNIX and UnixWare businesses to oldSCo (now Tarentella), but retained the right to waive contract disputes with any original SvrV licensees on SCO's behalf, Novell's requests for SCO to waive the AIX license cancellation, SCO's refusal, and Novell's letter waiving the AIX cancellation on behalf of SCO. Of course a side letter between IBM and AT&T where AT&T granted IBM a fully paid-up irrevokable license in exchange for several million dollars played a significant part in in Novell's actions. The $50B number is bogus in another way. SCO's case against IBM is based on contractual violations *NOT* copyright as you may infer from the press. The same contractual violations in the lawsuit are also the basis for SCO's revokation of IBM's AIX license. If IBM wins the case, the basis of the revokation disappears. SCO has filed no complaint with the courts for other than the modified $3B, so the $50B number is just press fodder.
Wise Judge! Posted Jan 25, 2004 17:03 UTC (Sun) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] From the article:"Citing judicial ethics, Wells declined to clarify the dispute." I guess she doesn't want to be removed from the case much like the original MS judge was. As I said in the title, wise judge! Duncan
|
|||||||||||