"Don't think you're not cleaning that up!"
Dec. 5th, 2003 11:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsObservers at the SCO discovery hearing today in Utah report the following:
None of SCO's press statements should be construed to apply to IBM or Red Hat. They were apparently entirely over the outrage SCO felt at SGI's accidental release of Unix SysV IP into the Linux kernel. This IP, it should be noted, was never put into production as Linus deemed it irredeemably ugly and replaced it with something more elegant and independently produced.
IBM is apparently whispering "Rule 11" about SCO. Rule 11 is legalese for abusing court proceedings in order to maximize profit rather than settle a point of law. SCO has said that they'd like the case to drag on because the longer it goes on, if they win, the more they'll reap from incremental penalties. That's blatant flaunting of Rule 11 procedures.
The judge slapped SCO hard, apparently telling them they must comply with IBM's motions "with specificity" within 30 days, leaving an implied "or else" in there. The judge also ordered SCO to withhold any other motions until it had complied with IBM's first and second motions. One of the observers said it was "SCO's blood all over the floor."
Read on. Look for user "sam"..
None of SCO's press statements should be construed to apply to IBM or Red Hat. They were apparently entirely over the outrage SCO felt at SGI's accidental release of Unix SysV IP into the Linux kernel. This IP, it should be noted, was never put into production as Linus deemed it irredeemably ugly and replaced it with something more elegant and independently produced.
IBM is apparently whispering "Rule 11" about SCO. Rule 11 is legalese for abusing court proceedings in order to maximize profit rather than settle a point of law. SCO has said that they'd like the case to drag on because the longer it goes on, if they win, the more they'll reap from incremental penalties. That's blatant flaunting of Rule 11 procedures.
The judge slapped SCO hard, apparently telling them they must comply with IBM's motions "with specificity" within 30 days, leaving an implied "or else" in there. The judge also ordered SCO to withhold any other motions until it had complied with IBM's first and second motions. One of the observers said it was "SCO's blood all over the floor."
Read on. Look for user "sam"..
