Jerry Feldman wrote:
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.
The problem is that SCO's idea of derivative works doesn't fit with
reality, particularly when AT&T made it clear that what SCO is claiming
is false. Take for example JFS. It was created for OS/2 and then moved
to AIX & Linux. SCO is claiming JFS is theirs, simply because it was
used in AIX, even though there's not a single line of their source code
in it. There are many other examples of them claiming technology that
they had nothing to do with.
--
Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
