On 2004-09-07, Tony Lawrence <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joe Dunning wrote:
>>
>> Change of ownership is frequently cause for termination: the company
>> could be bought by a competitor.
>
> Caldera as a competitor to IBM ??

Arguably, yes, UW on Intel as a competitor to AIX on PPC or x86. But
that is not the point. It's frequently difficult to define a competitor
in a way that is suitable for a contract, so contracts just talk about
change of control, they don't attempt to limit to the company being
controlled by a competitor.


>>
>> My opinion is that, since the contract hasvery clear wording allowing
>
>> IBM to terminate in the event of a change of control, IBM's actions
>> followed the *INTENT* of the contracrt.
>
> Most of us enter into contracts expecting to get something in return.
> What did SCO get?

Perhaps nothing, but arguably, IBM entered the contract with the
expectation that they would be dealing with SCO (old-SCO that is) and
not Caldera. So, arguably, it was SCO that did not hold up its end of
the contract.

Anyway, we are discussing our opinions of the expectations people had
going into the contract. The real issue is that IBM had the right to
terminate and so, there is no justification for TSG to sue over
this. People involved may be upset over the way things turned out, but
ultimately, as you agreed, SCO's management screwed up when they agreed
to the terms. I don't think TSG has a valid reason to sue just because
of bad decisions by SCO.