|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
Interesting you should say that... I was going back, looking for any clues as
to what they might invent next.
Somewhere along the line, I seem to remember SCO2s "trustee" saying
that the only thing they had left in the way of possible assets were the unfair
competition and tortious claims. (as in "we exist to litigate")
I can remember some crazy stuff that SCO2 claimed regarding copyrights, but most
of that couldn't be found in Linux, and some of it was even IBMs home-grown code
that wasn't even in UNIX (and "better not be" in UnixWare).
According to this motion, IBM reminds the court that SCO2 has entered no proof
of copyright infringement (even after "how many?!?" court orders,
ordering them to show evidence of infringement):
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf/IBM-781.pdf
So, is there now new evidence that SCO2 wants to provide? Is this the
"blepp's briefcase" that so many have alluded to? Any pre-game wagers
on where the code actually originated from this time? :)
As far as the unfair competition and tortious claims, from what I found,
everyone that SCO2 claimed to have been bullied by IBM to migrate away from
SCO2s "product" provided statements saying otherwise (except BayStar).
Could that be it? Maybe Baystar has now provided a statement supporting SCO2s
claim? (perhaps someone feels bad about a broken promise to Goldfarb?)
My mind is spinning with the possibilities of how much more twisted this road
can possibly get.
Going through the SCO v IBM timeline, I realized how much I enjoyed PJs
coverage, though. I've thoroughly enjoyed it, and now I'm looking forward to
more (and now I'll duck for cover). :)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
