Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 6th Dec 2003 19:42 UTC, submitted by Tom Curtis
SCO, Caldera, Unixware IBM won a tactical victory Friday in a legal battle with SCO Group when a judge ordered SCO to show within 30 days the Linux software to which it believes it has rights and to point out where it believes IBM is infringing.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Archie Steel on Sun 7th Dec 2003 09:55 UTC

The Royal Bank of Canada is the link,

No, actually Baystar Capital is the link. It seems that they participate in a lot of PIPEs (Private Investments in Public Equity) such as the investment in SCO. Microsoft and Vulcan (founded by Paul Allen) are among Baystar's top ten PIPE investors. Baystar says that Microsoft is not part of that particular investment, but in the world of high finance it's pretty easy to funnel money around.

It's still no proof, but it does smell fishy.

My companies canadian office has an account with the Royal Bank of Canada does that mean we are funding SCO?

No, and that is not the point I was making. You seem very defensive about this...

Every tech company in canada has an account with them does that mean they are bankrolling SCO.

Again, that wasn't the point I was making. But since we're on the subject, I'm not sure that every tech company in Canada has an account with the Royal Bank. There's also the TD, the CIBC, the Bank of Montreal, and in Quebec the National Bank and the Mouvement Desjardins...Canada is not a one-bank country (even though Royal Bank is the biggest, IIRC).

IBM will lose in January when the judge orders them to disclose to SCO.

I don't see why the judge would force IBM to give a copy of AIX's entire source code to SCO. After all, SCO has stated (many times) that they know what code has been stolen, that they had numerous examples, and so forth.

IBM is witholding as much as SCO is,

Except the two aren't in the same position. IBM is the accused, and SCO is the plaintiff. It's up to the plaintiff to prove that the accused is guilty, it's only natural that they should present their proof.

if you want to play that game why didnt IBM go ahead and disclose to SCO so SCO would disclose with them?

As a matter of fact, IBM has provided most of what SCO has asked for, except for the AIX source code. The reason IBM has (rightfully) presented motions to compel discovery is that SCO clearly shown that it had no intention of providing the specific information required (what about those 1 million printed pages?)

I don't know how you can equate IBM and SCO's position here. It's almost as if you've come to think that SCO actually has a case. This doesn't sound like you...or you're really into that Devil's advocate mindset.

To me, events are unfolding as they should: SCO takes bets, loses them, eventually loses its case. I see nothing in what happened at the hearing to make me doubt this.