I see, so let me make sure I understand your position. You (SCO) have made a
series of uncorroberated aligations without offering even the faintest hint
of proof, however you insist that I buy a license for that technology which
may or may not actually exist, which you may or may not actually own, at an
extortionist price...for my own good. Thank you but no, I'll wait until said
claims have been prooven beyond a shadow of doubt, in court. Don't let the
door hit you on the way out.

"Avi Dines" <amendozaschwartz-pr.com> wrote in message
> SCO Media Statement Re IBM Counterclaim 08.07.03
> We view IBMs counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention
> from its flawed Linux business model. It repeats the same unsubstantiated
> allegations made in Red Hats filing earlier this week. If IBM were
> about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full
> indemnification and move away from the GPL license.
> As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes
> increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO, Red Hat, or
> IBM. The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an
> Internet age. In a strange alliance, IBM and the Free Software Foundation
> have lined up on the same side of this argument in support of the GPL. IBM
> urges its customers to use non-warranted, unprotected software. This
> software violates SCOs intellectual property rights in UNIX, and fails to
> give comfort to customers going forward in use of Linux. If IBM wants
> customers to accept the risks of the GPL, it should indemnify them against
> that risk. The continuing refusal to provide customer indemnification is
> the truest measure of IBM's belief in its recently filed claims.
> Regarding the patent accusations -- SCO has shipped these products for
> years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time
> that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these
> products. Furthermore, these claims were not raised in IBMs original
> answer.
> SCO reiterates its position that it intends to defend its intellectual
> property rights. SCO will remain on course to require customers to license
> infringing Linux implementations as a condition of further use. This is
> best and clearest course for customers to minimize Linux problems.