Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3403 comp.unix.sysv386:9140
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!uunet!kithrup!sef
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Santa Cruz Operation settles Lotus lawsuit
Message-ID: <1991Jun20.014600.14562@kithrup.COM>
Date: 20 Jun 91 01:46:00 GMT
References: <1991Jun19.041754.6367@kithrup.COM> <1991Jun19.234829.7918@ico.isc.com>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 25

In article <1991Jun19.234829.7918@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>Is there any reason to think that SCO gave in to Lotus for
>any cause other than being "out-lawyered"?  

Yes.  Considering the number of people SCO laid off recently (a subject I
won't get into), I suspect the settlement was because SCO did not feel it
could afford a lawsuit, no matter what their chances of winning were.

As to the point... well, Lotus already knows how various people feel about
it.  I think it might be time to let the *other* side know how one feels
about their capitulating to bogus (IMSHO) copyright issues.  Perhaps if SCO
and Borland had banded together against Lotus, something could have been
done (successfully, that is).  As it is, it only reinforces Lotus' position.

>As you say, under the circumstances it's not surprising that SCO decided as
>they did.  The problem lies elsewhere.

Yes.  But if you don't think that SCO getting a few dozen calls about
something like this won't make a difference in future actions, think again.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.