[Talk] SCO vs. IBM - the gloves come off...
andrae.muys at braintree.com.au
Fri Jun 20 14:19:37 EST 2003
david.newall at auug.org.au wrote:
> Leon Brooks <leon at cyberknights.com.au> wrote:
>>>I see that there are now *two* issues between SCO and IBM. For the
>>>first issue, SCO must prove that IBM misappropriated IP. For the
>>>second issue, being distribution of AIX without a licence, IBM must
>>>prove that SCO had no right to cancel the licence. That puts IBM on
>>>somewhat shakier grounds.
>>AFAICT, that's bass-ackwards. SCO have to show valid cause for
>>cancelling the contract. They don't seem to be in a rush to actually
>>*get* an injunction so far, do they?
> I don't think they do. I think they claim that they have exercised
> their contractual right to cancel the licence. Certainly they appear to
> have followed due process; including (according to their web) seeking
> a permanent injunction restraining IBM from selling or distributing
> further copies of AIX.
I think what Leon means is that if the contract enabled SCO to arbitarly
cancel IBM's license on 100 days notice, a) IBM wins noggin of the
millenium; and b) SCO would have filed for an immediate temporary
injuction. While I haven't seen the contract in question, all reports
indicate that only a violation of the license terms would have permitted
SCO to terminate the license. Therefore the permanant injuction will
rest on the result of the original IP suit.
Andrae Muys But can it generate *quantum* Haiku
<andrae.muys at braintree.com.au> error messages, in Latin, where each
Engineer line of the error message is a
Braintree Communications palindrome? -- Mike Vanier on perl
More information about the Talk