[Talk] SCO vs. IBM - the gloves come off...

[david.newall at auug.org.au]

Greg Rose <ggr at qualcomm.com> wrote:
> At 12:16 PM 6/18/2003 +0930, david.newall at auug.org.au wrote:
>>I'm sure they'll stop distributing AIX.
>
> Rubbish.

That's a bit strong, isn't it?

> It's a civil matter. Until a court issues an injunction, they're no
> worse off, given that they've registered their disagreement, than if
> they stop.

Are you certain it's civil?  Presumably SCO would claim a breach of
copyright, which I think is a criminal matter.

> No. IBM doesn't even agree that the license *can* be terminated, and again 
> they've said so.

Of course, I haven't seen the licence (you might well have seen one that's
equivalent), but the reason SCO gave 100 days notice was because that
was a term of the licence.  Clearly the licence *can* be terminated; the
question is whether IBM have given cause.  SCO say they have; IBM say they
haven't.  I don't know who is right, and frankly, neither does SCO or IBM.
It won't be until (and unless) this goes to court that anybody knows.

Just suppose SCO wins.  Just suppose IBM continues to distribute AIX in
the mean time.  Having won, it will be clear that IBM have violated SCO's
copyright.  Would you, were you in IBM's legal team, permit that risk?
The damages would be astronomical, not to mention that the board would
almost certainly be criminaly negligent (they have a duty of care to
their shareholders.)