On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:07:32 +0100 alan@ibgames.com wrote:
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'? It does not change what I originally said. IBM will take the necessary steps to block it. The end result, the courts will rule on the merits. I doubt the courts will move to block IBM from selling AIX. IBM's statement on their web site says it very clearly and concisely. http://www-916.ibm.com/press/prnews.nsf/jan/55A7C7C594DDED6785256D480048D624
--
Jerry Feldman