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.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Does this mean IBM can't proceed? | 155 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Does this mean IBM can't proceed?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 03:47 PM EDT
Once SCO is no more, there is no more bankruptcy stay, and so both IBM and
Redhat can move for summary judgement based on the lack of an opposition and
hopefully get declarations from the court that Linux does not violate any UNIX
copyrights.

Actually, they both got that already. Novell had declared that Linux did not
violate any UNIX copyrights back when they first made their public statements
that they still owned the copyrights, which is what SCO sued Novell over in the
first place. So once Novell won their law suit with SCO, Redhat's suit against
SCO was moot. IBM does still have some counterclaims against SCO concerning
breach of contract and copyright violations by SCO of IBM owned code.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Does this mean IBM can't proceed?
Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 03:48 PM EDT

I don't think that happens. The legal actions have to be resolved one way or another before liquidation can be completed. And IIRC in the IBM case the lawyers are on the hook regardless of payment thanks to BSF signing that contract, they've been paid in full so they can't walk away. I'm not sure how filing fees and such work, BSF may have to pay those themselves and bill their client for them depending on what the rules are. But I think SCO has to get the judges in all those cases to either dismiss the cases or rule on them, SCO can't just make them disappear.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )