IBM Asks Court To Declare Linux Non-Infringing 133
A Cyclic Graph writes "We finally have a redacted version of IBM's Reply Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment on Counterclaim 10 in SCO v. IBM. In short, IBM is asking the Court to declare that Linux doesn't infringe upon any of SCO's purported intellectual property. This document is the last word on that matter until the Court either declares there to be no doubt that Linux is free of infringement, or decides that that issue has to be decided by the jury. In their brief, IBM points out that SCO puts forth a convoluted set of non-answers referencing each other to disguise it's inability to answer IBM. Their set of cross-references is so complex that Groklaw readers graphed the claims to make what little sense of them they could."
Re:It's a race (Score:2, Interesting)
Want your hair to fall out? (Score:3, Interesting)
not to beef but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This could set an interesting precident (Score:2, Interesting)
In a copyright-free world, it could fall either way. MSFT might become insignificant and the rest of the world become more open. Or MSFT might survive by leveraging TPM as an alternative to copyright, with the help of hardware manufacturers who would rather sell to Microsoft's 90% market than OSS's 10%, and conveniently kill off the OSS community. BSD too.
We don't need to wait for a copyright-free world anyhow; Microsoft's big push towards Protected Media Path and TPM has little to do with protecting the MAFIAA companies, and much more to do with pushing hardware manufacturers to choose between Microsoft and FOSS by making it much harder to support both.
Re:Summary is wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
"Don't sue IBM" probably ranks somewhere close to "don't start a land war in Asia," as advice for a happy and successful life.
Re:Contempt of Court? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the judge doesn't care at all. He just looks through the papers, sees what in there is evidence (nothing), what in there refutes what IBM is saying (nothing), and ignores anything else. It's his job, and he is used to that. It's like if you gave me twenty lines of code that don't do what they are supposed to do, plus hundred pages of text claiming that your code actually works - those hundred pages won't confuse me, because I just look at the twenty lines and see they don't work. When you or I as a non-lawyer read SCOs nonsense, we are just confused. The judge isn't. He checks: Is it evidence? Does it refute IBM's claims? if it doesn't, it can be ignored.