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
Nah stronger action needed | 197 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Peak one to Peak two: "It IS viral and we is sick!"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT
If TP did acknowledge wrong doing, they could say it is
'inconsequential' or allocate that to a paragraph of
'undiscovered wrongdoing on their part' and plead for
forgiveness and pay a token amount (relative to the entire
case) to FSF or other appropriate NPO in the FOSS realm.
This would be effectively spinning off the MOUNT issue as a
separate item, and apologizing by saying 'me bad'.

Doing that, I could see they could still proceed with a
'significant' suit against RH related to replicated file
system architecture.

In discovery, I wonder if TP AND RH will have to 'show the
code' to the court? RH won't mind, but TP might have an
issue. Especially if they ripped off much from FOSS
projects. In the old SCO vs LINUX codes, they did do line
by line code looking (as my memory serves, but that is
getting weaker). Somehow, I doubt it will gt to that.

All that being said, I have no clue how this will go.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Nah stronger action needed
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 06:34 AM EDT
If it's true then these guys need to be bankrupted and then staked like
vampires.

[ 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 )