[Am-info] SCO Agrees IBM Owns AIX, JFS, NUMA, RCU Copyrights!!

[Roy Bixler]

On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:53:22PM -0400, Sujal Shah wrote:
> The term pro bono means for free.  He is definitely looking for a 
> payment (as you pointed out).  The term I think that applies here is 
> contingency.  his fees are contingent on his client winning.  of 
> course, I'm not a lawyer and we have some experienced ones on the list.

Thanks for the clarification.  "Contingency", it is then.

> Just understand that SCO isn't using Boies "for their defense"... SCO 
> is the plaintiff here, so they have to prove their case.  The burden of 
> proof is on them, not on IBM (again, experienced lawyers please correct 
> me if I'm wrong).  It's an important point (that I think you get, but 
> needs to be reemphasized).  Just because they're making the claim 
> doesn't mean that IBM needs to show they're wrong... SCO first needs to 
> actually show evidence that they are right.

No, my question was about whether SCO plans to use Boies to defend
themselves in the Redhat v. SCO case and whether they have a
contingency arrangement worked out for their fees in that case.  The
Redhat case could be quite expensive for them.

As an aside, it's hard to believe that SCO is getting good legal
advice with respect to their pushing Linux users to pay them for a
"licence."  You're correct when you say that they haven't yet proven
their claims in court and the "licence" will allegedly assure buyers
that they will not be sued for "intellectual property infringement."
Since it's very possible that SCO doesn't actually own the
intellectual property they claim to own, doesn't this amount to
extortion at this point?  SCO could be in even more legal trouble if
their intellectual property claims don't hold up in court.

R.