On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:57:40 -0400 James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, it's plainly obvious to all, that SCO's "case" is fraudulent. Last > year, about 2/3 of the claims were tossed out by the judge. IBM has > been working to show what remains is also nonsense. Novell is also > showing that SCO doesn't even have standing to make such claims, should > there have been an infringement. Obvious or not, the Judge has not yet made his final ruling. We know that Magistrate Judge Wells' order virtually threw out most of SCO's case. Judge Kimball's denovo review asserted Wells' order, but SCO filed an objection. Until Judge Kimball issues a ruling on that SCO's case is still viable. IBM has been taking the higher road on this. Anyone with common sense would agree 100% that SCO's cases are totally bogus, especially after the 3 declarations on the Novell case. But the SCO case against IBM is based on a contract IBM signed with AT&T that specified "derivative works", and their claim is that IBM violated the contract by contributing JFS, NUMA (by way of Dynix), and SMP to Linux, even though these were not part of SCO Unix. Certainly, the copyright issues are just part of the case. Wells ruled essentially that SCO has failed to provide evidence. But, whatever we think, it is up to the trial judge (Kimball) to rule in the case. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
