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
Slight change | 428 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
IBM will only focus on ending this with the minimum of effort
Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 01:11 AM EDT

You forget who IBM's customers are, and what SCO claimed IBM did. If you are Airbus, are you going to want to do business with an American company who is in a business relationship with Boeing (your biggest competitor) who's been accused of ignoring confidentiality terms in contracts when money's offered? If you're a major bank in the Cayman Islands, are you going to feel comfortable buying computer hardware, financial software and support services, with the attendant deep access to your systems and data, from a company who's been accused of ignoring confidentiality when pressed, say by the United States Internal Revenue Service?

How many billions of dollars a year in net income is at stake for IBM, and what percentage of that is it worth spending to make it clear the accusations were completely baseless and were made solely to extort money?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Slight change
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 09:16 AM EDT
IBM will only focus on ending this with the minimum of effort needed to ensure
total destruction of the attacker.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

IBM will focus on getting the result they want ending this with as much effort as is needed
Authored by: IANALitj on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 10:07 AM EDT
I cannot believe that IBM will leave useful stones unturned in order to attempt
to minimize their efforts.

The new judge has directed (not just offered, but directed) IBM to file a
summary judgment motion with limited scope. I believe that IBM's counsel will
do the best job they possibly can, expending any necessary effort rather than
minimizing it.

After that, there will probably be additional, left over, summary judgment
motions to decide. I do not expect IBM's counsel to slack off on these, either.


That's not how IBM operates in the legal arena. Consider how they fought the U.
S. to a standstill in an antitrust case some decades ago.

[ 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 )