[linux-elitists] SCO drops its bomb

Mikael Pawlo mikael@pawlo.com
Mon Jun 16 22:47:16 PDT 2003

At 4:38 PM -0700 6/16/03, Rick Moen wrote:
>Quoting Mikael Pawlo (mikael@pawlo.com):
>  > It is hardly that easy in any Western jurisdiction.
>...and moreover happens only if the court grants the requested
>injunction, following plaintiff convincing the court that (1) there's a
>serious cause of action, and that (2) damages alone wouldn't suffice,
>absent defendant (or some third party) also being enjoined from
>continuing whatever he's doing.
>It's my understanding that courts apply a very high burden of proof to
>such motions, often holding an evidentiary hearing on the question, yes?

I guess that depends on the court. In this case the effect of such 
injunction would be very grave to IBM, why - at least in Sweden and 
the U.S. - the SCO Group would have to show good evidence and also 
possibly provide the funds to redeem IBM (any damages), should SCO's 
claim not be valid. As far as I understand it, SCO's financial 
situation does not make such a scenario very likely, but customers 
may be frightened enough to force IBM to settle with SCO.

Again: Not legal advice!



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list