Talk:SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.

message: :to be written: see NWfusion story at , and GROKLAW
:Wesley, you have put your editorial finger on one of the continuing weaknesses of this article: editors are eager to add more content as it happens to this article, but do not try to integrate it into the existing content. And yes, I'm probably as guilty as anyone. -- llywrch 16:07, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: They are relevant, at least they give some idea of the general opinion of the case, and some people may enjoy the humour. Perhaps there should also be some that make fun of IBM's side as well, to be fair... (If any that do that exist, that is...) Κσυπ Cyp     10:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Did the "old" SCO donate source to Linux?

message: I will remove Scheduler code claims and Increased damage claims, and read-copy-update claims, because I think that the Scheduler-section doesn't provide enough factual information. It isn't clear, what is the code that is talked about. The issues talked about in Increased damage claims-section are covered elsewhere, so there's no need for that section IMHO. Tell me, if I'm cleaning this article up too much. Jannex 21:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scheduler and RCU sections out

message: How should we go about adding the fact that Judge Kimball's recent rulling stated that the SCO group had in fact made a copyright infringement claim against IBM regarding Linux?  Currently the article basically says that SCO retracted that claim (they actually tried to make it seem as if they had never made that claim but the judge caught on).  I think there are lots of other clean ups that can be made to this article.  Someone relatively recently removed SCO's claims to ELF, even if they aren't lawsuit related where else should public claims by SCO against IBM be put? zen master    T  02:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added SCO's claims to the article. As it says, they do claim copyright infringement. If the article claims otherwise somewhere else, it has to be edited out. I agree that there should be a clean up, and I'm gradually trying to do one. It was also me who removed the ELF allocation. It is covered in SCO-Linux controversies, and it isn't part of this lawsuit. --Jannex 18:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I went through the external links list and moved useless and outdated links to the Press Coverage page. Any comments? --Jannex 13:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs updating and other comments

message: The SCO-Linux controversies article contains the following text:
:On June 28, 2006 Judge Brooke Wells granted IBM's motion to dismiss most of SCO's case, citing in part SCO's inability to provide any evidence to back up their claims: 
::In December 2003, near the beginning of this case, the court ordered SCO to, "identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM." Even if SCO lacked the code behind methods and concepts at this early stage, SCO could have and should have, at least articulated which methods and concepts formed "the basis of their action against IBM." At a minimum, SCO should have identified the code behind their method and concepts in the final submission pursuant to this original order entered in December 2003 and Judge Kimball’s order entered in July 2005. (paragraph 30)
Surely that's a major development which should be in this article? I'd put it in myself, except I don't know enough about the case or law in general. 83.71.45.163 10:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case dismissed?

message: SCO Group filed for Chapter 11 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on Friday September 14. Case number 07-11337 Wdanner 21:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SCO Group files for Bankruptcy

message: This edit made the article internally inconsistent, using the terms "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" interchangeably. This is confusing; we should use one or the other. It should be reverted.
:I think "Linux" as the lawsuit refers to the kernel, not the GNU tools. outboxing (work • yada) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent reverts

message: What is the nature of IBM's license to use and develop a Unix derivative?  Does it pay royalties to SCO or Novell? -- Beland (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: IBM Unix license

message: Somebody has been allowed to cover the tracks of SCO in this case.  I believe everything turned out very badly for SCO in this case, but all evidence of developments after 2003 have been deleted from the article.  I hope a wiki editor can restore the content that has been wiped.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why have all case developments after 2003 been wiped from the article? 

message: Since nobody cares and/or knows enough to update the article, it is useless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.37.193 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  .  It's a lot harder now that we don't have groklaw collecting all the information in one place and having lawyers write commentaries, but although it's just a matter now of watching the rubble bounce, the case was very important in its day, so it's worth documenting its bitter end. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  nominate for deletion