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.

2 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. 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

  2. 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.