Hello ralph_arrow,
> What you didn't mention is that IBM has numerous
> counterclaims. And, that most of the evidence and most parts
> of the experts reports submitted by SCOX have been thrown out
> the the administrative judge. Their case has pretty much been
> gutted.
I did not purposely mention nor ignore anything, and I am glad that you brought this up. Please ... feel free to have an open discussion about all of this.
I think that if you want to discuss the details of what claims are standing, then to be fair we ought to talk specific numbers, and then talk about the details of the remaining claims.
> Not to mention that Novell seems to be doing pretty well in
> their case with SCOX. That case is the immediate danger for
> the continued existence of SCOX. If Judge Kimball grants
> Novell's motion for a preliminary injunction to set aside
> funds, it would mean instant bankruptcy for SCOX.
Yes ... I was extremely impressed by this tactic. I haven't posted here in a while as I have been very busy lately, however when I saw those motions I thought it was very inventive. Again ... the attacks are directly in the financials to bleed SCOX dry, and remove the ability for them to stay alive as a going concern.
> >> The key that most people do not remember is that there is
> a "breach of contract" issue ...<<
>
> SCOX's evidence of this is remarkable -- remarkably weak.
> Total crap, in fact. They have been talking about Linux code
> illegally contributed, but failed to point out any actual
> lines of code.
When I read the original contract, there were numerous other areas that could be used to prove breach. I'll agree that I'm not sure they initially handled the public communications around the various possible issues. Internally, the focus was not as much on the "lines of code", as much as other actions that IBM might have taken.
> As for IBM shipping AIX, Novell waived SCOX's alleged breach
> of contract on this. In fact, SCOX is only a license fee
> collector for Novell, or as Novell claims, SCOX doesn't
> actually own any UNIX copyrights. It's still a matter of
> contention whether there are any viable UNIX copyright left
> after the USL/BSD settlement.
You appear to state this as fact, however this is exactly what is being argued as a part of the Novell lawsuit. Who owns the copyright, and did Novell have the right to waive. None of this is "final" yet. It's all up in the air still.
> Kindly do your homework, Scott.
Hmmm ... I offer you my same level of respect!
P.S. You seem to have emotional religion about this company ... I'll still stand by my opinion that this is a long-shot, high-risk investment opportunity ... just my take on it. I have no such attachment ... I really don't care who wins ... I'm strictly interested in making money.
Scott C. Lemon
the.inevitable.org |
