|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 04:32 AM EDT |
I agree. I do not think anything in the IBM case will settle any of this. SCO's
trouble in this case is that they have nothing to go on but assumptions. That's
the only area I think the IBM and Novell cases can hurt them in this case. Their
credebility is pretty much ruined if both IBM and Novell prevail. I do not think
any judge would be willing to grant them much room to manouver after a loss in
IBM and Novell. So if they have nothing more then presumtions and vague ideas I
do not think they will get very far.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: al_petrofsky on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 05:09 AM EDT |
Read the TSG submission again - this is (or rather is claimed to
be)
about OpenServer libraries and hence is nothing to do with the
SVRX
copyrights
Read it a third time. All four of the
copyrights allegedly infringed
are SVRX: TX 5-750-268, TX 5-763-235, TX 2
611-860, and TX 2 605-292.
(TX 5-763-235 is not a valid registration number and
is
presumably a typo for TX 5-762-235).
The TX 5 registrations are for
"UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 3.2"
and 4.2, and the TX 2 registrations are for SVR3.2
reference
manuals.
---
scofacts.org [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, September 06 2004 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
Read the TSG submission again - this is (or rather is
claimed
to be) about OpenServer libraries and hence is
nothing to do with the SVRX
copyrights.
I took your advice and re-read the
AutoZone
Complaint. In fact, this is not about OpenServer at all. Nowhere in
the entire document is the term "OpenServer" used. Not once. The Complaint is
(at least officially) all about System V and UNIXware.
---
"When I
say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
