|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 05:28 AM EDT |
| SCO-scum bragged that they "defeated" Novell in four days when they asserted
their right to their UNIX V R4 copyright. On the other hand, they have not come
up with an official, written response on the merits of either IBM's or RH's
countersuits on their merits - and the days of non-response are turning into
weeks. Their request for extra time to respond to the RH lawsuit for within this
pattern, and of course this request was filed very quietly. To date, they
apparently have failed to put up either IBM's or RH's countersuit on their web
site: either they are doing the equivalent of closing their eyes and wishing
them away, or they are confident(?) that they can negotiate IBM and RH out of
dropping their countersuits.
I understand from that single article that SCO-scum has started to send invoices
to end users, but that article has not been confirmed either by SCO-scum, any of
the end users or the anyone else in the rag trade press: if SCO-scum is indeed
sending these invoices, they are doing so within a vastly different context than
even a few weeks ago because their credidibility assuming there was any in the
first place is pretty much shot. In fact, the public record of their
pronouncements shows such a pattern of lies, distortions, omissions and
contradictions that any of the end users could point to that record in court and
argue that SCO-scum's allegation of IP infringement cannot be trusted and that
SCO-scum must be be required to substantiate its allegation that it took place
by successfully suing everyone of its licensees - The advantage of this legal
strategy is that SCO-scum demotivates everyone from licensing anything with it
ever again. IANAL, of course.
blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 06:15 AM EDT |
what is interesting is the fact that Novell has come out with another statement
which leads me to think that Novell just got in touch with IBM and decided they
would attack that way maybe to avoid legal bills?
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 06:33 AM EDT |
brenda, do you have a link to that statement?
Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
| http
://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=1725366517&fp=16&fpid=0
here ya go
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
sorry for posting again it is basically Novell saying put up or shut up
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">brenda
banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 06:42 AM EDT |
my yahoo site for scox trades lists no activity for today
is this true?
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
Brenda -
Market opens at 10AM EDT or EST (whatever NY is using today).
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Tsu Dho
Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 07:01 AM EDT |
sigh my power outage yesterday must have messed my computer time up
thanks for the head up
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 07:25 AM EDT |
Why would Redhat agree to the extension? Is it pretty much the done thing?
What I'm looking for is why they didn't just tell them "you snooze, you lose,
bozos", and I expect there's a good answer, just that I obviously don't know
anything about law.
David Welton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 08:17 AM EDT |
Isnt SCO's response to IBM due today. If I recall correctly IBM countersued 2
days after Redhat filed. If so we could probably expect a request for an
extention in that case as well.
fava[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 09:17 AM EDT |
fava: in this case, so much for SCO-scum's assertion that they want the court
cases resolved as quickly as possible. No surprise there.
blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
| " Why would Redhat agree to the extension? Is it pretty much the done thing?
AFAIK, the first extension is a done deal ... after that the other side's
lawyers can start objecting on the gournds that the other guy is stalling.
Tsu Dho
Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
David, Tsu, in my experience, it's a matter of courtesy. After all, you may
need the same favor down the road, as IBM did in its answer, if you recall.
Sometimes, because lawyers usually have more than one client, with sometimes
conflicting demands on your time, not to mention judges assigning dates for
certain things to happen, that you just can't do everything. So it's certainly
not unusual to agree to an extension. If Red Hat refused, then the judge would
likely grant it anyway. It really doesn't mean much, IMO. There is no
arbitrary "You get one but no more" extensions. It's based on the
circumstances. But a lawsuit is a long and complex thing, so courtesy is normal
on both sides, as far as the lawyers are concerned. It's a tradition. I
personally think it is a good thing. Whenever I've seen lawyers act
discourteously, it just makes the whole process not work well, and a lot of
unnecessary waste of time and money and effort goes into resolving an issue that
isn't even central to anything that matters. If I found myself working for such
an attorney, I'd quit.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 27 2003 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
anyone know how long an extension sco got?
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
