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

Chris Maltby chris at sw.oz.au
Fri Jun 20 14:25:30 EST 2003

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:13:18AM +1000, Greg Rose wrote:
> I don't believe that they're any more liable for shipping a copy
> of AIX post-accusation than they were pre-accusation. Of course,
> all that changes if a court decides that SCO has a credible claim
> and issues an interim injunction.

Indeed. Then it's a criminal matter of contempt of court.

> But SCO haven't even asked for one! Probably because if
> they don't get it, it's all over.

Probably because they know that the chance of getting one is
very remote. The main issue is that the judge has to weigh up
the balance of harm caused by the granting or refusal of the
injunction request.

As you said, the harm to IBM if an injuction were to be issued
is massive, whereas the harm to SCO if one were not issued
is relatively slight. And that's before the judge has even
considered the likelihood of SCO's complaints being upheld.
The final thing is for a judgement to be made about the capacity
of the litigants to meet the costs of a loss - and it would seem
that IBM would likely be able to meet the additional penalty
which might accrue without an injunction.

An application for an injunction would also require SCO to
place a detailed arguing of their case into the public domain,
which might well (as you say) be self-defeating...


More information about the Talk mailing list