[vox] SCO suing IBM over their Linux activity

[Matthew Snelham]

On 30 May 2003 09:25 PM or thereabouts, Michael Wenk wrote:
> On Friday 30 May 2003 09:14 pm, Mike Simons wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 09:03:25PM -0700, Mark K. Kim wrote:
> > > Anybody here work for SCO?  Anybody for IBM?
> >
> >   One thing I find interesting is news of this is *all* over SCO's
> > website.  They have made SEC 8-K filings warning people about this
> > action, and in their 10-Q they mentioned the risk this lawsuit
> > poses to them.
> >
> >   I can find *nothing* what-so-ever on the IBM website about this
> > issue.  Nothing in their SEC filings, no press releases, nothing.
> > I would very much like to know IBM's public stance on this issue
> > in something other than the form of news articles with a few quotes from
> > IBM.
> >
> > - Where does IBM have their option of this issue?
> 
> Doesn't IBM have a policy of not commenting on pending litigation?  I thought 
> I remember that they did...

I'm an IBM employee.  It's my understanding that they have a policy of not
commenting on any potential no comment policies.  ;-)

My entirely personal impression is that IBM has quite a bit of hard earned
experience about how to fight and win court battles.  And they're
anal-retentive (in the good way?) about avoiding anything questionable in
the first place.  Basically, you have to be slightly insane to pick a legal
fight with Big Blue.  SCO apparently qualifies. <shrug> 

(P.S. - I know nothing more about the case than what I get from external
sources, and that's probably for the best.)

--Matthew
infinite@sigalrm.com

--
   "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
    To a man without a hammer, it makes perfect sense to throw 
    vast amounts of effort into learning better techniques for
    using the blade of a circular saw to drive nails."