SCO vs IBM: The Week In Review
Groklaw Has Trouble Sharing Its Toys While IBM Tries To Take SCO's Toys Away
April 1, 2005
Summary
A round-up of the week's latest goings-on in the SCO vs IBM case. "We suspect lawyers' blood will run in the streets before this is sorted out," observes Maureen O'Gara.

Story comments from the message boards

* moMoMo commented on 1 April 2005:
o ||| Groklaw Has Trouble Sharing Its Toys While IBM Tries To Take SCO's Toys Away |||

Classic Mo. Designed to rub the Groklaw fur the wrong way.


* O'Garish, Maureapwhatyousow commented on 1 April 2005:
o If you wish to contact the author of this article, she's on her knees under Darl McBride's desk during working hours. Simply give Darl a call and he'll hand the phone to her between her jobs, er, work.


* jesse commented on 1 April 2005:
o "but the law suggests that Utah has dibs.."

What law?

If they follow the CONTRACT, then they have to file in New York.

Sure, they can file anywhere they want, but then they have to also accept that they are violating the CONTRACT.


* crimson_slime commented on 1 April 2005:
o MOG, you are LADS, SOL and JPL. HAND.

Definitions:

LADS: Late And a Dollar Short
SOL: (Four letter word, starts with "S") + hit Out of Luck.
JPL: Just a Plain Loser.
HAND: Have A Nice Day.


* cat_herder_5263 commented on 1 April 2005:
o IBM volunteers that if SCO wants to bring the claim it can do in New York where "it is contractually bound to proceed." Cute gambit, but the law suggests that Utah has dibs.

It's really not a "cute gambit" as Ms O'Gara so coyly phrases. It's in the Monterey contract. If anybody cares to read it they can find the Monterey agreement between Santa Cruz Operation and IBM at

www.finchhaven.com/TSCOG/Monterey.html

Careful reading of the contract will allow you to grok in fullness and make your own conclusion.

Don't let the cane toads cloud your judgment.

=^^=


* Haewood Jabloeme commented on 1 April 2005:
o Yet another well researched and unbiased article!
How do you find the time to author such a masterpiece?


* me commented on 1 April 2005:
o SCO claimed to the world the MILLIONS of lines of DIRECT copied code.. And neither the Judge or IBM has seen any of it.. Why do you forget that little fact MOG?

Another BIASED production from sys-con & MOG...

(Now how long will it take you to censor this comment)


* mog commented on 1 April 2005:
o April fool's day. U silly toads!!!


* Hahaha U Funny commented on 1 April 2005:
o You're wrong again. How many times is that for you now? Do you research any of your articles or do you merely front SCO to help manipulate their stock?

I'd suggest you revisit the contract between IBM and Santa Cruz Opeartions. The project was dead before Caldera was there. And I do believe Santa Cruz Operations is still around as Tarantella (you know the ones that sold the SCO name to Caldera so they could change their name to the SCO Group?)if you want to check with them.


* Thomas commented on 1 April 2005:
o Again with a Groklaw rant? Seriously Maureen, grow up! Act like a journalist instead of a 3 year old.


* EskerFan commented on 1 April 2005:
o Well, you use full sentences and stuff, but really Esker Melchior says it better.

The 'cute gambit' is based on the actual contract the two companies were party to... but SCO doesn't have a great record when it comes to understanding contracts.

I can't believe that people pay $500 a year for your newsletter. I suspect that as _every_ article you produce has serious deficiences the number of suckers must be continually diminishing.

Why not do some research and try to look credible for a change? It'll put food on the table longer than the hyperbole you currently publish.

The National Enquirer of IT.