Page 3 of 4
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:33 pm
by Ghost [PX]
Whats that sound I hear?
Why its the death rattle of SCO! The linux community already disproved their claims, and now they're targeting 2 fortune 500 companies, one of them Daimler-Chrysler no less, with lawsuits that they're sure to lose....
Morons.
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:37 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
Yeah, I'm hoping they counter sue for................anything.
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:41 pm
by Ghost [PX]
SCO is finished as far as Im concerned...
They've attempted to push around the little guys, they got ignored. Now they're going to try and push around some big boys, and get slapped down hard. You bet your ass Chrysler will counter-sue. Probably for damages and anything else they can.
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 7:01 pm
by Ghost [PX]
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5170181.html?tag=nefd_top
SCO funded By Microsoft... SCO Denies... World Rolls Eyes...
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 8:40 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:17 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:42 am
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
Unbe-frickin'-leviable.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ech_sco_dc
Here's to IBM and their appeal.
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:32 am
by [PX]Kal Bob
The articels title is miss-leading, they did not win anything. The court is just ordering the Code into evidence, I don't understand why they did not just give them this in the first place. It does not help SCO as far as I can see.
obtaining this important discovery
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:08 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
It's considered a "loss" because IBM had been saying that there was no reason for them to turn over their proprietary code.
I agree that it's not actually a loss, but the fact that the courts are taking SCO even semi-seriously when the code in question was given away free years ago blows my mind. I don't see why IBM should've had to turn over their code.
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:56 am
by [PX]Kal Bob
The Judge wrote:"Despite the vast disparity between SCO's public accusations and its actual evidence--or complete lack thereof--and the resulting temptation to grant IBM's motion
Does not sould good for SCO....
http://news.com.com/Judge+slams+SCOs+lack+of+evidence+against+IBM/2100-7344_3-5570265.html?tag=nefd.top
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:35 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
Excellent.
Odd as this may sound, I hope IBM counter sues.
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:23 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
SCO shows just how dumb they really are:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 6172616929
Kernel 2.7, eh?
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:00 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
IBM wants blood:
http://news.com.com/IBM+issues+subpoena ... ?tag=st_lh
Going after whoever was linked to SCO. I say go for it.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:57 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
Wow.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 4192617648
SCO admits its subpoenas were faulty. They haven't a hope of winning it seems.
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:09 pm
by THE JEW (RaVeN)
SCO tries to rewrite its past:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_S/threadview?m=tm&bn=2942&tid=415572&mid=415572&tof=5&frt=2
