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

Andrae Muys 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 mailing list