NY Times Reveals SCO/Canopy Group Hypocrisy

rjamestaylor writes "The New York Times reports that 'SCO, the company that touched off a computer industry slugfest last spring by suing I.B.M. over its use of Unix software, may find itself embarrassed by a similar claim against a company once related to SCO.' Note that the reporter, John Markoff, ties together Noorda's Canopy Group companies, revealing that: 'Canopy is now SCO's largest shareholder, with two seats on the company's board, and has played an important role, analysts say, in shaping SCO's legal strategy.' He even quotes SCOSource shill Laura Didio as saying, 'All roads lead to Canopy...'"

Comments

Re:GPL involvment

[Rich0]

It may not set precedence in the judicial system in general, but it is a legal document just the same.

If Canopy states that it is their position that the GPL is invalid, the settlement can be dug up, and if it states that Canopy concedes that the GPL is valid, that would probably be admissible in the courtroom. Now, if Red Hat sued MS over the GPL, you couldn't bring out Canopy's admission and use it against MS - but you can use it against SCO.

Now, if a judge ruled that the GPL was valid, then that WOULD set precedence, and you could use it against ANYONE.

The settlement in this prior case is similar to finding a memo documenting that a car manufacturer is willing to tolerate lawsuits of up to $x million for wrongful deaths when the company executive just testified that the company doesn't put a price on lives.

Canopy can't argue in the courts that the GPL is invalid while conceding that it is valid after all.

Now, if the settlement was a standard no-admission-of-wrongdoing settlement it may not make much impact in the case. But the article suggests this is not the case.