Replies

They'd like to know about any restrictions on employees having access to UNIX source code...

This is going nowhere, since the UNIX source code has been in the public domain since UNIX System V was released by ATT (Bell Labs) back in the 1970's. Likewise, LINUX has also had the core source code available for at least two decades.

This is going to be like the IBM antitrust case that Justice brought back in the early 70's charging IBM with monopolistic practices. After almost 15 years of litigation and 18 gondola carloads of documents, IBM prevailed. Justice again tried against Microsoft and lost that one, too. Now it appears that IBM wants to play the same game.

The result will be the same: Hundreds of millions of dollars lost, tens of thousands of man-hours lost, and higher prices to you and me the consumer.

If we only had the British system where the plaintiff, if they lose, must pay legal fees and damages to the defendant if they don't prevail.

This is a very expensive, bad joke.

"If we only had the British system where the plaintiff, if they lose, must pay legal fees and damages to the defendant if they don't prevail.

That would not help in this case. If SCO loses, they will have no assets left to pay for anything.

Now it appears that IBM wants to play the same game.

I'm pretty sure that IBM is the defendant, not the plaintiff. I can't fault them for defending themselves and their business strategy from someone who files a lawsuit. Especially if Microsoft is so willing to dump money into a dying company to see the lawsuit continue.

Now it appears that IBM wants to play the same game.

You've got it backwards. IBM is defendant in litigation filed by SCO, which got money from Baystar, who got money from Redmond.

IBM is just defending themselves, like they did when Justice came after them.