From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au (Peter Jeremy)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:22:03 +1100
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
In-Reply-To: <20030310234548.GO94647@wantadilla.lemis.com>
References: <20030310012147.GB94647@wantadilla.lemis.com> <002501c2e6b2$f8b6ec60$ed8ca140@ca.caldera.com> <671020867.20030310142100@subatomix.com> <20030310211518.GL90290@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> <20030310234548.GO94647@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <20030311002203.GS90290@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>

On 2003-Mar-11 10:15:48 +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog at lemis.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 11 March 2003 at  8:15:18 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>I think you mean me, not Warren.  Warren hasn't said anything yet.

Oops.  Sorry about that.  "My mind is going...  I can feel it, Dave"

>My concern is not whether it's genuine--I'm convinced it is.  My
>concern is more whether SCO's apparently bone-headed lawyers will
>believe it's genuine.

Taking the devil's advocate position, if my lawyers were convinced
that I'm made a particular statement, based solely on a piece of
e-mail given to them by my competition, I'd be in the market for
some new lawyers.

>> Whilst you could probably prove the authenticity of the e-mail, this
>> would cost real money - and SCO probably can afford to spend a lot
>> more money than you can.
>
>It's not clear how much money SCO has.

Probably more than you or I do...

>I am very sure that IBM has not put any UNIX code into Linux.

I'd be very surprised at this as well.  It would open a legal minefield.

Peter