|
| Authored by: sproggit on Sunday, June 17 2012 @ 08:37 PM EDT |
OK, an interesting take on things, but I do have to take issues with your
thinking on this...
"In response to that, I quote both
Judges."
Absolutely, and you are factually correct when you
state that both Magistrate Judge Wells and Trial Judge Kimball saw through SCO's
ruse in short order. However, the fact remains that Darl McBride and various
other spokespeople made a near-endless string of claims and proclamations. We
had accusations against IBM, assertions that the GPL was "unconstitutional" and
on and on.
I can't deny that the legal system saw through things, but
while those wheels of justice were grinding so excruciatingly slowly, SCO
continued their plan of FUD against Linux.
On your second correction,
about Discovery being closed, motion practise wrapped up and everyone at the eve
of trial, you're absolutely correct. That's a fair point.
However,
given the intervening time, and the fact that during the interval the SCO vs.
Novell case was concluded in Novell's favour, would you agree that there are now
some additional facts which can be brought to the table, and which would act in
IBM's favour?
Actually, on that point, perhaps the sale of the Unix
business might weigh more tellingly on the Court than even the fact that Novell
prevailed. If SCO were so adamant that Unix was their path to riches, then why
would they sell that asset? Surely, with the claimed $5 Billion in damages
they would be ideally placed to levy monies from all the Linux users worldwide?
Except now, of course, they can't... How would a Court react when it learns that
the plaintiff has sold the asset that they were bleating about so much? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Well... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 08:34 AM EDT
|
|
|
