Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Early signal of no case? | 401 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj

Authored by: webster on Monday, May 27 2013 @ 07:07 AM EDT

It actually started to unravel earlier when SCO went into the whole deal assuming it didn't matter how good a case they had,

It didn't unravel. They had a case, good or bad, as they were supposed to with the funds from the Monopoly. They could say "Don't use Linux. It is stolen and illegal." They could say it for years.

IBM and the others would settle because it was cheaper than litigating, and it turned out IBM didn't use the same arithmetic in tallying up the costs. McBride should've folded the moment IBM raised, cut his losses and gotten out.

McBride had no losses to cut. The suit was his "Raison d'être" and meal ticket. The target was fixed by the Monopoly. He didn't succeed in settling for or winning the billions. His damage, and returns were greatly limited, thanks to pj some would say.

~webster~

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Early signal of no case?

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 27 2013 @ 08:27 AM EDT

SCO ran from the German courts and Europe when directed to produce their
evidence.

[ 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 )