And I can't write anything about what IBM has allegedly done, because SCO won't tell us. They do seem to be in a bit of a tizzy.
Mommy, Mommy, save me. I wish to say thank you to the British Library for issuing this document. They always act like such weanies when the tables are turned and somebody stronger than they are walks into the playground.
He didn't at that point know about the California statutes.
I see a declaration by John Terpstra too. And if anyone wants to split it up into smaller chunks for our friends in Europe who are on dialup, just send me the PDFs and I'll gladly put them up also.
I believe you will find all the methods and concepts you can eat in there.
Here's a piece they might not know. After I digest it all, I'll explain anything needing explanation. Yet they released over and over under the GPL.
It's too long to file electronically, so we'll have to wait to read them, but most of them we have already. What were they hoping for as the return on the investment?
Or more time to respond to Novell's discovery requests.
It's more than twenty, because there are proposed orders too. End game is turning out to be fun.
Later, when Goldfarb asked to see the evidence against IBM, so his consultants could evaluate the strength of SCO's claims, he says that Boies said he'd provide it but he never did. They lost sight of the values that HP has always represented. A lot of folks have done so too, and so IBM is now asking the court to toss out these three SCO claims.
They say they have them on DVD, though, so hint to the clerk: that means they are already digital. They would be embarrassed.
He agreed I could, so here's his explanation, which I'm sure will help you to understand that win or lose, IBM comes out ahead. Is that not SCO to the max? If that were true, then how come they didn't at least know about the methods and concepts being in there?