Nice to see you're still around; however, I'm still waiting for your
explaination of this:
----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----
amicus_curious wrote:
...
>>> I don't think that you have a good grasp of the issues in the IBM/SCO
>>> case. They do not care a fig for Linux or what happens to Linux or even
>>> whether or not they are damaged by Linux.
>>>
>> Really? If SCO doesn't care a fig for, or about what happens to, or if
>> they're damaged by Linux, perhaps you'd like to comment on these:
>>
> (lots of irrelevant Groklaw snipped)
>
> Well until Groklaw can satisfy the world that it is not just a paid for
> shill working for IBM and Novell, what is posted there is not very
> credible to begin with, so there is no need to waste any time answering
> it...
Fine, if SCO don't care a fig about Linux, perhaps you'd like to comment on
these then:
``LinuxTag has accused SCO of illegal anti-competitive practices in a
warning letter dated Friday, May 23 referring to SCO's unsubstantiated
allegations that Linux contains SCO's (unspecified) proprietary code.''
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=9679
``Two Polish Linux companies have issued notices to the SCO Group...
``The CEOs of CYBER Service and IT Zone demanded that SCO stop claiming
there was illegal code in the Linux kernel without any proof.
``They also said SCO should stop telling other companies not to use Linux in
their solutions and that it should publish a declaration saying that Linux
is legal in Poland.''
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/10/1055010962786.html
``In a media release...the SCO Group...said Linux contained code which it
claims as its intellectual property.''
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/15/1052885324252.html
``3. A variant or clone of UNIX currently exists in the computer marketplace
called ?Linux.?? Linux is, in material part, based upon UNIX source code and
methods, particularly as related to enterprise computing methods found in
Linux 2.4.x releases and the current development kernel, Linux 2.5.x.?
Significantly, Linux is distributed without a licensing fee and without
proprietary rights of ownership or confidentiality.''
http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/Doc-25.html
``SAN FRANCISCO--August 4, 2003--Red Hat, Inc. (Nasdaq:RHAT) today made two
significant announcements to protect Red Hat Linux customers and the
worldwide Linux industry. First, Red Hat announced that it filed a formal
complaint against The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX, "SCO"). The purpose of
this complaint is to demonstrate that Red Hat's technologies do not infringe
any intellectual property of SCO and to hold SCO accountable for its unfair
and deceptive actions.
``"We filed this complaint to stop SCO from making unsubstantiated and
untrue public statements attacking Red Hat Linux...''
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2003/press_sco.html
[And not a Groklaw link in sight ^_^]
----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----
And also a reply to this:
..ooO0Ooo.. ..ooO0Ooo.. ..ooO0Ooo.. ..ooO0Ooo.. ..ooO0Ooo..
amicus_curious wrote:
...
> I don't think that you have a good grasp of the issues in the IBM/SCO
> case. They do not care a fig for Linux or what happens to Linux or even
> whether or not they are damaged by Linux.
Really? Perhaps you'd like to comment on this:
----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
10 West Broadway,
Suite 400
Salt Lake City, Utah
84101
Telephone: (801) 363-6363
Facsimile: (801) 363-6666
David Boies
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, New York
10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
Stephen N. Zack (Florida Bar No. 145215)
Mark J. Heise ( Florida Bar No. 771090)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
100 Southeast Second Street
Suite 2800
Miami, Florida
33131
Telephone: (305) 539-8400
Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
Attorneys for Plaintiff Caldera Systems, Inc. d/b/a The SCO Group
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF UTAH
CALDERA SYSTEMS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation d/b/a THE SCO GROUP,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
...
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets--Utah Code Ann. §13-24-1 et seq
...
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unfair Competition)
...
118. In furtherance of its scheme of unfair competition, IBM has engaged
in the following conduct:
...
d) Contribution of trade secret protected software code for incorporation
into one or more Linux...
119. IBM's unfair competition has directly and/or proximately caused
significant foreseeable and consequential harm to plaintiff in the following
particulars:
a) Plaintiff's revenue stream from UNIX licenses for Intel-based processing
platforms has decreased substantially;
...
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Interference with Contract)
...
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
...
Plaintiff's address:
355 South 520 West
Lindon, Utah 84042
----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----
URL: http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html
Who owns www.thescogroup.com (132.147.63.12)? Lets see:
OrgName: The SCO Group, Inc.
OrgID: THESC-8
Address: 355 South 520 West
Address: Suite 100
City: Lindon
StateProv: UT
PostalCode: 84042
Country: US
NetRange: 132.147.0.0 - 132.147.255.255
So that's an SCO document (in fact, it's the complaint filed with the court)
- let's get it straight from the Horse's mouth, not a paid IBM shill...
Please explain 118(d), 119(a) in light of your assertion of "They do not
care a fig for Linux or what happens to Linux or even whether or not they
are damaged by Linux." 'Cos it sure don't look like they don't care a fig -
especially about being damaged by Linux.
If, as you assert, SCO don't care a fig about Linux, have they lied to the
court?
|
|