Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 07:02 AM EDT |
is their good name, and they also want to warn off other potential vexatious
litigators by showing them what they would be up against if they should ever
think to try the same sort of antics with them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 11:38 AM EDT |
Well, one part is that at the time, David Boies had
the policy of taking all clients who paid the
fee. After SCO, that policy changed. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 12:03 AM EDT |
There is no meat left on the SCO carcass for even the
hungriest of vultures. The only thing to be gained of this by
IBM is to send a message that they will vigorously defend
their business against intellectual property trolls.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: xtifr on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 06:43 AM EDT |
IBM hasn't been after money in this case ever. SCOG slandered IBM, and IBM
wants to prove that it was slander. IBM's an old-fashioned company in
that way--they actually care about their reputation with their partners and
customers.
Accusing IBM of violating contracts and licenses is probably
the worst thing SCOG could have done, as far as creating an implacable,
unrelenting foe goes.
--- Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for
it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 06:43 PM EDT |
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/articlebasic.php%3fstory=2010090209355689
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
That IBM does to Boies what the they deserve: string it out until the entire law
firm is BANKRUPT!!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|