| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
No they didn't. It is reasonable.No they didn't. It is reasonable.Posted Mar 30, 2004 20:35 UTC (Tue) by chel (guest, #11544)In reply to: No they didn't. It is reasonable. by AnswerGuy Parent article: SCO's Motion to Bifurcate (Groklaw) "Unless those patents were licensed to SCOG via the same suite of contracts that are at issue here, it sounds like that should clearly be a different case, heard in a different court." Part of the contract issue is SCO's rather broad explanation of the term "derived work". Maybe the patents are within this broad view.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||