Mario Lombardo wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/09/mcbride
>
There seems to be this haziness regarding the copyrights and patents
connected to Unix, despite anything the judge might have said. If that's
true, I have to wonder if part of the reason Novell excluded the Unix
copyrights and patents from the agreement is for precisely that reason.
If there was some question about those issues, Novell couldn't very well
sell the copyrights and patents. It would be fraudulent.
The other stupid part of this whole thing is that SCO signed the
agreement they signed. McBride wants to say, "This agreement doesn't
make any sense, Mr. Judge. Fix it for us, okay?" But since when did
legal agreements have to make sense? The people who signed this
agreement on behalf of the agreeing parties had a responsibility to know
what they were signing. Which, regardless of whether it "made no sense"
was quite clear. You've got high powered lawyers on both sides. I don't
think anyone can step back later and say, "Oh geez, we didn't know
*that's* what the agreement said!"
I was hoping that SCO would run out of money so they couldn't pursue
this any further. No such luck, I suppose.
Paul
-- Paul M. Foster ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:06:57 EDT