On 2006-08-21, John Bailo <jabailo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The claims were reduced...but isn't there still litigation?
The judge threw out the majority of SCO's claims because they were
either too vague to be legally meaningful or else were not supported by
any evidence at all.
There are remaining claims, true, but the judge has remarked on record
that the evidence seems weak, and there isn't much substance to them
anyway. Even were SCO to win on them (and, again, even the judge is
dubious) it wouldn't matter much.
The case hasn't made it to trial at all - they are still working out
exactly what's going to trial. *All* of SCO's grandiose public claims
at the start of the fracas have been quashed by now. What's left is
essentially a contract dispute resting on a very flimsy, precarious
reading of the contract. A reading that is specifically disavowed by
contemporaneous sources.
Ironically, the most important claims now are *IBM's* against SCO. In
particular, I really want IBM to nail SCO to the wall for GPL
violations.
> And of course, the bad blood of the whole thing.
Where? Oh, you mean for SCO. Yeah, they're screwed. Linux is doing just
fine.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"As it stands now, for the vast majority of the populace, selecting a
leader is like deciding which dishwasher detergent to purchase at the
grocery store. You have a couple of brands with big, flashy, colorful
boxes, that smell the same, look the same, and are probably
manufactured by the same company." - Dan J. Rempe
|
|
