In a previous message, Dave Smith wrote:

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 08:33:44PM -0400, landy@despiertapr.com wrote:

...

On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 19:51, Michael.James@csiro.au wrote:

...

IBM Comment on SCO Press Release [snip] you can tell when someone is right. simple , concise and clear.....

Just because they are simple, concise and clear doesn't mean they're right...

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"...

Indeed. I suspect that, if SCO are right, they would be within their rights to terminate IBM's contract. However, until they've proved that, they are quite possibly not within their rights - you can't generally terminate a contract simply based on an unproved accusation, which is all SCO has ATM. So, I'd be surprised if SCO's action against IBM in removing their right to distribute AIX was legally justified, hence IBM's response. However, if SCO's case is proved (once they finally reveal what it actually is) they could of course be quite justified in penalising IBM in this way. John -- John Pettigrew Headstrong Games john@headstrong-games.co.uk Fun : Strategy : Price http://www.headstrong-games.co.uk/ Board games that won't break the bank Fields of Valour: 2 Norse clans battle on one of 3 different boards

On 17 Jun 2003 at 8:04, Jerry Feldman wrote: Date sent: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:04:44 -0400 From: Jerry Feldman To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Organization: Boston Linux and Unix Subject: Re: [SLE] re: SCO cuts off AIX, IBM's reply

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:25:19 +0100 John Pettigrew wrote:

...

So, I'd be surprised if SCO's action against IBM in removing their right to distribute AIX was legally justified, hence IBM's response. However, if SCO's case is proved (once they finally reveal what it actually is) they could of course be quite justified in penalising IBM in this way. Essentially, SCO goes to a judge to get an injunction. IBM likewise goes to a judge to block and injunction. Just more information for the press. The contract will not be legally terminated untill the issue is fully resolved in the courts.

-- Jerry Feldman

No. It's more conplex than that. As I understand it SCO are asking for a permanent injunction, not a temporary one. This means that it's part of the main case and if they win that part of what they want is the permanent injunction. I'm not a lawyer, but the fact that they didn't go for a temporary injunction sounds significant to me. A temporary injunction would be heard relatively rapidly and would, if successful, stop IBM distributing AIX immediately. But to get a temporary injunction they would have to prove they have at least a reasonable case by producing the evidence. As it is they have effectively done nothing to stop IBM distributing AIX in spite of their threats. Bottom line - why are they avoiding taking any steps that require them to make public their 'evidence'? alan -- http://www.ibgames.net/alan Registered Linux user #6822 http://counter.li.org Winding Down - Weekly Tech Newsletter - subscribe at http://www.ibgames.net/alan/winding/mailing.html