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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Standing | 310 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Better question: why did SCO blatantly lie to the court (yet again)?
Authored by: jbb on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 09:50 PM EDT
The contract clearly states that it was not a joint venture yet SCO told the court it was. IBM risks nothing by correcting SCO's lie while SCO risked a lot by telling yet another fib. What advantage was SCO trying to get?

As rsteinmetz70112 correctly predicted, giving IBM only 4 days to respond was an open invitation to SCO to start playing their games again. I'd like to see BS&F fined many millions of dollars for all of this nonsense. If other law firms follow their lead then it will be impossible to get anything done in a court of law because we will have to wrangle over every word.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Standing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 01 2013 @ 01:39 PM EDT
SCO has a major hurdle in that they were not even party to Project Monterey.
They are throwing out words to make it look like there's a connection, but IBM
is pointing out there is no there there...

[ 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 )