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

[Andrae Muys]

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

-- 
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