This article speaks about that article and the topic of indemnification http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31702.html
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Boyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 10:25 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: FW: [IP] more on the SCO-IBM lawsuit (from an > unlikely source) > > > This is a *excellent* capsule summary of the whole SCO case, > written by (of > all things) a lawyer with a clue about technology. Minimum > legalese, and > very clear, very lucid analysis of the issues. Worth printing out and > leaving on the bosses' desk. > > -- db > > David Boyes > Sine Nomine Associates > > From a colleague: > > > In case you missed part of this fall's fun, the calmest site > >discussing the SCO affair is http://www.groklaw.com/. But you knew > >that. > > Today they have a link to the new IBM counterclaim document. > >http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/ibmamendedcounterclaims.pdf > >Yup, on SCO's site no less. > > Now the point here is to read what IBM said, of course, but > >also read for synopsis written especially clearly. The guys who wrote > >this at IBM know how to carry info across to busy folks and did so > >in easy English. I must say, those guys have paid attention and have > >done their homework. It's a good read, to use the vernacular. > > I have no idea why SCO put up the document. But > then we don't > >know a lot of things. > > This will keep you away from the incoherent noise level of > >slashdot and similar. >
