Previous
SCO: IBM has 'failed to comply'
Talkback So SCO are saying IBM haven't fully responded to a lawsuit that SCO itself haven't fully declared. SCO and Microsoft know they can't win but have figured its cheaper to keep paying the lawyers and keep ripping of companies which would otherwise...
[July 12, 2004, 13:25]
SCO: IBM has 'failed to comply'
News The SCO Group, which is suing IBM over its treatment of the Unix and Linux operating systems, has accused Big Blue of failing to release required documents. SCO on Tuesday filed a "renewed" motion to compel IBM to release more memos from executives...
[July 12, 2004, 9:25]
SCO sues IBM over Unix, Linux
News SCO Group, inheritor of the intellectual property for the Unix operating system, has sued IBM for more than $1bn, or about £630m, alleging that Big Blue misappropriated SCO's Unix technology and built it into Linux.
[March 7, 2003, 7:33]
SCO adds to IBM ammunition
News It's the same RCU etc.stuff, which is all-IBM code and has nothing to do with SVR4 or anything else that SCO purports to own," Torvalds said in an email. The details appear in a declaration by SCO attorney John Harrop, filed last week, that's part...
[July 16, 2004, 14:40]
SCO: IBM has 'failed to comply'
Talkback Hang on here, so SCO are demanding all the past and present source code from IBM but have repeatedly refused to release any detals of the alleged copied code to the Linux community.Because they'd just go ahead and fix it)
[July 12, 2004, 14:53]
SCO: IBM has 'failed to comply'
Talkback Of course this article doesn't bother to mention that all this evidence that SCO has repeatedly said that it had in masses is so far of the ether, and hasn't been submitted in any way to the court, to IBM, or to any of the users of either Unix...
[July 13, 2004, 6:43]
SCO: IBM has 'failed to comply'
Talkback For example, in this filing, SCO is claiming that IBM has failed to comply with discovery, but then mentions things that IBM was never ordered to provide. It's silly of you to print SCO press releases, and especially silly to print extracts from...
[July 13, 2004, 18:38]
Intel subpoenaed in IBM-SCO battle
News IBM, sued by the SCO Group for allegedly violating its Unix contract by moving operating-system technology to Linux, subpoenaed chipmaker Intel in the case on 27 January. IBM also requested any documents regarding contacts, meetings, contracts and...
[February 2, 2005, 11:35]
IBM and SCO gather reinforcements
News Subpoenas are flying in the high-profile lawsuit between the SCO Group and IBM, as both companies try to buttress their legal claims by turning to third parties for information. IBM has also broadened its efforts to respond to the Linux-related...
[November 13, 2003, 7:35]
SCO: IBM has 'failed to comply'
Talkback It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad watching the continuous gyrations that TSG/SCO is going through to try to strong arm IBM via articles, such as this, and mouth pieces like Enderle, O'Gara, Didio, etc.
[January 3, 2005, 19:14]
IBM and SCO gather reinforcements
Talkback IBM should simply purchase SCO, dismantle their crumby little operation, sell off the crumby little pieces, destroy any of their crumby little employees, and discredit all of their crumby little management.
[November 15, 2003, 19:22]
IBM launches another SCO counterattack
Talkback Let us hope it reflects a change accross the board not just in the context of the SCO action. As a purchaser of software I note IBM's comment about indemnities being "narrowly drawn" - this is a big problem in terms of customer comfort.
[September 30, 2003, 8:09]
Red Hat hires IBM lawyer to fight SCO
News Linux seller Red Hat, tangled in a legal wrestling match with the SCO Group, has hired a new top lawyer from IBM. The case awaits a decision in SCO's suit against IBM, though Red Hat is seeking to reawaken its case.
[May 18, 2004, 9:15]
IBM drops claims to speed case against SCO
Talkback SCO was arguing they needed yet more time/depositions to deal with these specific counterclaims, so IBM dropped them to speed things along. So their case against SCO isn't dropped. It's not good news for SCO, as delay is what they've always wanted.
[October 10, 2005, 10:00]
SCO: IBM has 'failed to comply'
Talkback Not one line of the "millions" have been produced by SCO as claimed over a YEAR ago? Are you able to do any research or do you just rewrite SCO press release that are not quite truefull? I have to agree.
[August 10, 2004, 21:29]
IBM and SCO gather reinforcements
Talkback SCO simply doing Microsofts dirty work. The more this legal battle goes one, the more obvious it becomes that SCO are simply doing the dirty work Microsoft has paid them large amounts of money to do. It has become obvious that SCO have no chance of...
[November 13, 2003, 11:28]
SCO: IBM has 'failed to comply'
Talkback Ho hum, another SCO inspired delay. Every time we get closer to a ruling or a hearing on this case, SCO ask for discovery or file a pleading or some other delaying tactic. SCO don't want to go to court, they just want to delay, Delay, DELAY.
[July 12, 2004, 10:10]
SCO allowed to delay IBM trial
Talkback OK, so Judge Kimball has confirmed that there is indeed difficulty over Novell/SCO unix copyright so that is one major missile in SCO's attack plan that's not there. Next, it seems that SCO is still unable to feel it can reveal it's claimed...
[June 14, 2004, 12:06]
IBM acts to throw out SCO's Linux claims
Talkback SCO has failed to produce any evidence, the claims of hundreds of thousands of literally copied code that it proported originally to be the reason for its case have not materialised and it is obvious now that they never existed.
[August 17, 2004, 11:40]
SCO adds another accusation to IBM case
Talkback No-one seems to get that the main point of the lawsuit is to create uncertainity about Linux, that is what Microsoft have paid SCO millions to do. SCO know they are almost certainly going to lose due to a total lack of evidence to support their...
[February 6, 2004, 15:03]
