sco vs ibm造句

• SCO suffered defeat after defeat in SCO v IBM and its various other court cases, and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2007.
• S . B . 239 has been applied retroactively by SCO's attorneys to the Santa Cruz-IBM Monterey agreement in the SCO vs IBM case.
• Following the partial summary judgment rulings in the SCO vs Novell Slander of Title case, Judge Kimball asked the parties in SCO v IBM to prepare by August 31, 2007, a statement of the status of this case.
• He could apparently afford to do this because SCO's main law firm in SCO v IBM had signed an agreement at the outset to represent SCO for a fixed amount of money no matter how long the case took to complete.
• Novell's web-based campaign at the end of 2004 was entitled  Unbending the truth and sought to outline the advantages as well as dispelling the widely publicized legal liabilities of Linux deployment ( particularly in light of the " SCO v IBM " case ).
• However, despite the courts finding that SCO did not own the copyrights ( see above ), and SCO's lawsuit-happy CEO Darl McBride no longer running the company, the bankruptcy trustee in charge of SCO-in-bankruptcy decided to press on with some portions he claimed remained relevant in the SCO v IBM lawsuit.
• Smallfoot is also notable in that it was a key Linux product of The SCO Group, developed for both the UNIX and Linux platforms and distributed by SCO and Caldera Systems / Caldera International after its purchase of SCO . In the SCO vs IBM lawsuit, SCO denied distribution of Linux kernel code, however SCO Smallfoot is based on both 2.4 . 10 and 2.6 . 1 Linux kernel versions.
• Over the course of the SCO v IBM case, it emerged that not only had SCO been distributing the Linux kernel for years under the GPL, and continued to do so ( thus rendering any claims hard to sustain legally ), but that SCO did not even own the copyrights to much of the Unix code that it asserted copyright over, and had no right to sue over them on behalf of the presumed owner, Novell.