Attorney: IBM-Novell worked together to hurt SCO

"However, Frankenberg, who oversaw the sale to Santa Cruz as CEO from 1994-96, said the copyright part of the agreement was a mistake and that Novell wanted only to protect its Netware and other products but not Unix.

'I should have read it more carefully and we wouldn't be here today,' he said."

I hope this works. Then the next time I am in car accident I can say that driving down this street was a mistake and I should have driven more carefully and we wouldn't be here today. Let's see how many judges would say "the actual events don't matter then" and let met off. Anyone know how I can contact the lawyers that came up with this? I have a bridge that leads into Brooklyn that will be coming up for sale.

I find it funny that they are saying that they meant to sell the copyrights with Unix. If that were true, why was the clause that prevented the transfer of copyright included in the first place?

I think it's odd that the headline is alluding to a conspiracy, but the article doesn't provide any evidence for one.

Considering it's the Salt Lake Tribune, nobody should be surprised at the obvious bias.

Pamela Jones' fact-check at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100310223451793

(More like a body-check, actually.)

> (More like a body-check, actually.)

Aren't they always?

Considering what passes for "journalism" in the newspapers of the US, good riddance.

Quoting: [...] I have a bridge that leads into Brooklyn that will be coming up for sale.

All: Don't believe this lying scoundrel. See my past posts, I no longer sell outright, you can only buy shares and share the profits*. There is one perk, share owners do NOT pay the tolls on this bridge. Buy into more and it will get you both profit share and reduced rates on the tolls.

Contact Your Buddy Txt. [aka YBT] for a business prospectus.

* Remember this Winter was quite harsh so the maintenance bill will be significantly higher reducing markedly the possible disbursements.