Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4344 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] Novell gets down and dirty with SCO
- From: James Knott <james.knott@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:46:24 -0400
- Message-id: <42F27090.10604@xxxxxxxxxx>
Peter B Van Campen wrote:
> On Thursday 04 August 2005 14:16, James Knott wrote:
>>Jerry Feldman wrote:
>>>The bottom line is that Darl McBride and company are not only ruining the
>>>former Caldera, but doing their best to hurt the entire Unix/Linux
>>>marketplace, which might be their objective.
>>I wonder what their lawyers think about the Novell suit, particularly
>>regarding McBride trying to get the copyrights from Novell and also
>>about that software engineer's memo? Did they know about them or were
>>they surprised?
>
> Hi,
>
> Well the SCOG lawyers DID demand payment in ADVANCE!
>
> PeterB
>
> p.s. remember that the now NONsecret ATT-Berkeley agreement strongly suggests
> that traditional UNIX code has been PUBLIC DOMAIN for many years now, and
> that consequently these suits are MOOT
>
My question is what happens, should the lawyers find out that the client
has lied? That there really is no case? Somehow, I don't get the
impression that David Boies would proceed with a case he knows to be
fraudulent.
> On Thursday 04 August 2005 14:16, James Knott wrote:
>>Jerry Feldman wrote:
>>>The bottom line is that Darl McBride and company are not only ruining the
>>>former Caldera, but doing their best to hurt the entire Unix/Linux
>>>marketplace, which might be their objective.
>>I wonder what their lawyers think about the Novell suit, particularly
>>regarding McBride trying to get the copyrights from Novell and also
>>about that software engineer's memo? Did they know about them or were
>>they surprised?
>
> Hi,
>
> Well the SCOG lawyers DID demand payment in ADVANCE!
>
> PeterB
>
> p.s. remember that the now NONsecret ATT-Berkeley agreement strongly suggests
> that traditional UNIX code has been PUBLIC DOMAIN for many years now, and
> that consequently these suits are MOOT
>
My question is what happens, should the lawyers find out that the client
has lied? That there really is no case? Somehow, I don't get the
impression that David Boies would proceed with a case he knows to be
fraudulent.
| < Previous | Next > |