SCO Says IBM Hurt Profits 174
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.
And you take it seriously? (Score:3, Informative)
They had to say that (Score:1, Informative)
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
Re:Well (Score:1, Informative)
Zombies are mindless. Zombies don't die.
Re:Hurt Profits? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:IBM did hurt SCO's relationship. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And you take it seriously? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hurt Profits? (Score:5, Informative)
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.