On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 03:02:07 -0500, Matthew Perdue <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>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.

In this case, SCO is NOT seeking a Preliminary injunction, which would
require the posting of the bond which they can't afford.  Instead they are
seeking a Permanent injunction.  A permanent injuction would only be
granted IF they prevail at trial, which will take several years.  A lot of
netgotiations will no doubt take place between now and the courthouse steps.

In other words, this is a lot of bluster that amounts to nothing in the
near future.  IBM and its customers should not have much to worry about.

John Wolff

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