Why no mention of the 1985 side letter? The contract is clearly clarified in the document and the judge seems to have just ignored it. IBM appears to own it's code, Not SCO.
Side Letter >"we agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you are owned by you. However, ownership of any portion or portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such modification or derivative work remains with us."
So what exactly does she not understand about this. It appears to be plain english without any need for interpretation. If it has no SYSV it is not protected by the contract. So the judge decides that all of AIX/Dynix needs to be produced. I would have thought that after months of deliberation that she could see this or is it the "Batting for the home team" Advantage that SCO have been hoping for?
IANAL etc
~ Merkey v The Internet et al Docs ~ Yahoeuvre ~ tuxrocks.com (SCO cases legal docs) ~ scofacts.org ~ eagle.petrofsky.org ~ Zen's Den ~ Yahoo SCOX Message Board ~ Lamlaw ~ Microsoft Watch ~ Groklaw ~ Korgwal - a Groklaw mirror ~ nosoftwarepatents.com ~ Flame Warriors ~ SCOXE Wars ~ Get your Merkey Number here! ~ Digital Law Online
Make a new account