|
Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 01:11 AM EDT |
You forget who IBM's customers are, and what SCO claimed IBM did. If you are
Airbus, are you going to want to do business with an American company who is in
a business relationship with Boeing (your biggest competitor) who's been accused
of ignoring confidentiality terms in contracts when money's offered? If you're a
major bank in the Cayman Islands, are you going to feel comfortable buying
computer hardware, financial software and support services, with the attendant
deep access to your systems and data, from a company who's been accused of
ignoring confidentiality when pressed, say by the United States Internal Revenue
Service?
How many billions of dollars a year in net income is at stake
for IBM, and what percentage of that is it worth spending to make it clear the
accusations were completely baseless and were made solely to extort money? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 09:16 AM EDT |
IBM will only focus on ending this with the minimum of effort needed to ensure
total destruction of the attacker.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IANALitj on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
I cannot believe that IBM will leave useful stones unturned in order to attempt
to minimize their efforts.
The new judge has directed (not just offered, but directed) IBM to file a
summary judgment motion with limited scope. I believe that IBM's counsel will
do the best job they possibly can, expending any necessary effort rather than
minimizing it.
After that, there will probably be additional, left over, summary judgment
motions to decide. I do not expect IBM's counsel to slack off on these, either.
That's not how IBM operates in the legal arena. Consider how they fought the U.
S. to a standstill in an antitrust case some decades ago. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|