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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
IBM Responds to SCO's Motion Asking for Reconsideration ~pj | 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: tknarr on Monday, May 27 2013 @ 01:28 AM EDT

SCO didn't have a choice about getting distracted by Novell. When they made their claims against IBM, Novell piped up with "Hold it, we own all that code and SCO's just our agent for collecting license payments. They don't have any legal right to be making the claims they're making.". SCO pretty much had to dispute that, if they didn't then their case evaporated. And that's when it started to unravel, because SCO was bluffing with queen-high garbage in their hand while their opponents had three of a kind showing and hole cards yet to show.

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

[ 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 )