At 09:49 AM 6/17/2003 -0700, Craig Lalley wrote:
"Gehan G." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

<...snip...>
The other thing that interests me about the SCO approach is that by
pushing to have IBM disrupt some part of their business, in the event
that SCO cannot prove their case (can you say
Carolian/Delrina/Symantec) the damages will be substantial because
there will have been easily demonstrated "irreparable harm" and SCO may
very well not be in a position to be able to afford the damages.
Perhaps Microsoft will buy SCO?
<.../snip...>

Texas law requires the posting of a bond by the party seeking the
restraining order in the amount of anticipated damages that could be
suffered by the party being restrained. In this case it could be a bond
of tens of Billions (yes, with a B) and something SCO cannot afford.
Other state's laws and Federal law have about the same requirements, if
memory serves. Highly unlikely SCO will get a restraining order (bond
requirement) or permanent injunction as SCO would have to demonstrate
the ability to pay IBM for any damages suffered if SCO does not prevail
at trial.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *