Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 06:41 AM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 09:10 AM EDT |
If SCOg was honestly willing to consider mediation they'd already be quite
aware they have nothing for the negotiating table.
Their claim is
"tortious interference in licensing Linux" combined with "tortious interference
for creating a competitive product". My interpretation of the
situation.
Interference with regards licensing Linux based on Copyrights
the Court has ruled they do not have? This should be a non-starter.
If
entity A claims "you painted my fence, you owe me $5", entity B tells you
"you did not paint his fence, don't pay him", the Court says "entity A, you
don't own that fence - entity C owns the fence and if the person who painted the
fence owes anything they owe entity C". Now entity A is going after entity B
for interference.
Personally, I can't see how that claim shouldn't be
dead in the water.
Since SCOg has no claim to the code they claimed Linux
infringed, any claims of IBM saying they didn't have any claim should be dead on
PSJ.
The second claim with building a competing product - well.... I
never thought I'd see anyone claiming that as anti-competitive (tortious
interference) but I guess it makes sense one of the SCOg crowd would say it if
anyone was going to.
Since SCOg has nothing for the negotiating table -
any time spent there would be time and costs wasted. Are they really concerned
about their money when they're suggesting a method to waste more of it? I don't
think so. I hope the Judge feels the same way.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 09:48 AM EDT |
They just need to call up IBM's lawyers and say they give
up, and want to wrap everything up. They should also
consider apologizing off the record for all the expense they
have caused IBM throughout this vexatious litigation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
They know IBM is not going to agree to any mediation that doesn't end in
abject surrender. I suspect that they may hope to blacken IBM's name
before the judge, because if I was IBM, I wouldn't see anything worth
mediating.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
Could it be a typo?
Maybe what SCO wants is court ordered
Medication ? On a parallel track?--- The price of freedom
is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
If Judge Nuffer handles the case like Judge Stewart did with
SCO v. Novell, it
might go something like:
- Let's have a scheduling conference. What's
the first
date
you can each get two lawyers to SLC?
- If you want to do
any breifing, make it fast.
- I've got two open trial spots,
here, pick the first one.
- You've both had years to prepare, don't ask
me for a
delay
for any reason.
Stewart pushed the schedule very
hard; he's the only one
in the Utah group that has managed to get an SCO case
concluded. Wouldn't be surprised that others might take
notes on
how...
Come to think of it, I wonder if SCO is asking for what
they think
they're going to get, so they can spin it as a
win? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bwbees0 on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 01:20 AM EDT |
Isn't the SUSE arbitration still on the books along with
others such as Red Hat
(See The
Order - A Chapter 11 Trustee is
to be Appointed; SCO's Sale Motion Denied -
Updated)
and stayed pending the outcome of the bankruptcy
proceedings? It
seems that winding up the bankruptcy may
allow others to show up and have their
day in court as well. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|