decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
Principal Analyst at Ovum: SCO "Hasn't Done a Good Job"
Monday, December 15 2003 @ 12:06 PM EST

It looks like the financial community is finally noticing that the judge took IBM's side in the Motion to Compel arguments on December 5th. It is affecting at least some of them, judging from this article, entitled "Now is the winter of SCO discontent" on Vnunet, in which the chief analyst at Ovum expresses this gloomy view of SCO:

"Ten days ago, in its breach of contract dispute with IBM, a US judge ordered SCO to produce its evidence of Big Blue's alleged placement of SCO code into Linux. . . .

"Gary Barnett, principal analyst at Ovum, commented: 'The legal decision to compel SCO to detail any infringing code is significant and proves it hasn't done a good job.'

"He also thought it unlikely SCO would now sue a big Linux user enterprise. The judge in any such case would probably rule it should wait until after ownership of the code had been proved.

"But SCO has vowed to press on. 'The Linux end-user lawsuits will hinge on much more than our case against IBM,' said Stowell. 'These are preliminary hearings. The case won't come to court until April 11, 2005. I would hardly jump to any conclusions based on the outcome of a preliminary hearing.'"




  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )