Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Says IBM Hurt Profits

Posted by kdawson on from the and-a-bandaid-for-your-knee dept.

AlanS2002 sends in a link from a local Utah newspaper covering the SCO-IBM trial. The Deseret News chose to emphasize SCO's claim that IBM hurt SCO's relationship with several high-tech powerhouses, causing SCO's market share and revenues to plummet. "[A]n attorney for Lindon-based SCO said IBM 'pressured' companies to cut off their relationships with SCO. And 'the effect on SCO was devastating and it was immediate'..." As usual Groklaw has chapter and verse on all the arguments in the motions for summary judgement.

7 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. And you take it seriously? by Talgrath · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Deseret News is nothing but a rag, I've lived in Utah for years and I don't think I've ever seen them report anything well and timely. The Deseret News will support anything Mormon or Utah over other religions and states, don't bother reading.

    1. Re:And you take it seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, if you had read the article it is fairly non biased. It points all the rebuttals from IBM's Lawyer and the whole second half is just what IBM's Lawyer said. For the record I am Mormon but I live in Pennsylvania. I also don't dispute that the Deseret News isn't the best paper, but this article seems to be well written with good information; It reports what happened and what it means to both sides.

  2. They had to say that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    One of the absolute requirements for a lawsuit is that there be damages. No damages, no suit. SCO has to claim that IBM has damaged them in some way and the only way that counts (for companies at least) is monetary. There are really only a few ways one company can cause damages to another. Hurting the profits is one such.

    So, the next time you want to launch a bogus lawsuit to cause a nuisance or FUD or something, don't forget to claim damages. Of course, since you're a person not a company, you have a few other kinds of damage you could sue for; let's see; your car was bumped by a shopping cart; you can claim whiplash; your quality of life was irreperably damaged ... Launch the suit, make sure you haven't forgotten anything that will get it immediately tossed out of court. Make it obvious that the suit will grind on for years and cost a zillion in lawyer's fees. Hope the other side will pay you off just to get rid of you. Of course that's what SCO tried and it didn't quite work.

  3. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Its time it died like other companies who made poor business decisions.


    Zombies are mindless. Zombies don't die.
  4. Re:Hurt Profits? by Samari711 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The truth of this statement is, of course, an entirely separate discussion.

    Actually, it IS the discussion at hand. In the hearing IBM stated that they have depositions from the heads of those companies saying that IBM did not in fact pressure them. This means that all of SCOx's evidence is hearsay. Additionally IBM goes on to say that even if what SCOx was right, what they claim IBM did is not illegal.

    --

    I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you

  5. Re:IBM did hurt SCO's relationship. by rsmoody · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have nothing to back this up, but I would put money on a large percentage of companies that were/are running SCO software were also running Linux somewhere. My bet is that when this started happening and the writing on the wall showed that SCO would be suing companies for running Linux if they could, they dumped any and all SCO software as fast as possible so that they would not pull some sort of "we are suing you for using Linux, and if you don't pay up instead of go to court, we are going to drop all support for any SCO software we are supporting." The smart thing in this case for any company using SCO software would be to run away from any SCO product and run FAST! When I worked at AutoZone's SSC, I remember seeing large numbers of Linux and Sun servers, but not a trace of SCO and if I remember correctly, in talking to some admins about the situation, they dumped any and all SCO products like a VERY hot potato not long after the suit started as their relationship with IBM seemed just rosy. flameaway

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  6. Re:Hurt Profits? by GSloop · · Score: 4, Informative

    IBM is NOT a convicted monopolist in any of the markets SCO is competing in. (If you can say SCO is competing in ANY market, other than frivolous litigation.)

    Further, IBM has persuaded, at least allegedly, it's competitors (BayStar Capital Management, Intel, Oracle, Computer Associates, Hewlett Packard and Novell) to put the hit on SCO. Monopoly (of which IBM isn't by far) simply won't fly here.

    SCO's claims are laughable.