Trump does not negotiate. He sets ridiculous demands and changes them on whims.

One of the things they accused IBM of putting into Linux was NEVER IN LINUX. It was rejected by the Linux maintainers AND it was SCOG that tried to put it in Linux not IBM.

SCOG also claimed that IBM converted a list of SCOG customers to Linux. Unfortunately IBM had all the press releases from SCOG BOASTING about how they had converted those customers to Linux.

Actually he was trying for a partnership with the landfill owners where they would get a share of the value of the bitcoin IF it were found. They declined.

As I recall O'Gara claimed not to be connected with SCOG but DID claim to be a creditor that SCOG owed money to.

But does IBM claim rent on things that they refuse to prove they own? That was what SCOG did.

Since SCOG wouldn't reveal the code that they claimed to be in violation how code IBM do that?

They also claimed to have a team of "MIT deep divers" who provided evidence. For some reason the "team" was never revealed. Also the "report"/"evidence" of these deep divers was never revealed. Funny thing is when they started the case with IBM they claimed to have a "mountain" of evidence and that they were ready to go direct to trial without discovery BUT then dragged out discover for YEARS.

IBM was required to turn over mountains of evidence which SCOG then claimed they couldn't access so IBM provided them with a server with all the required information WITH detailed instructions on how to setup the server (down to how to plug it in) and access the data. No evidence was used from this server, no reason to believe that SCOG ever set it up.

Per core.

I wonder who that would be? Couldn't be that once again there is a lot of talk of people abandoning Windows for Linux due to Microsoft annoying their customers? Who would see that as a big enough problem to throw money at for FUD lawsuit AGAIN?

Only in the U.S.. The rest of the world would still have Linux.

Problem is no infringing code was ever disclosed. The closest was code that SCOG claimed was encrypted BUT was actually just a word document with the font changed to the WingDings font. Once the code was typed into a new Word document and switched from WingDings to a normal text font it was revealed to be BSD code and legally included in Linux. Code that SCOG had no rights to.

Just like all the supposed Microsoft patent violations by Linux. Microsoft would never specify the "infringing" code or the "infringed" patents BECAUSE the patents might be invalidated.

Always hard to fix a problem when all you are told is "There is a problem" and never WHAT the problem is.

Copyright is to encourage people to publish their works which will allow them to make money on it AND eventually enter the public domain. Anything that by the way it is published will NEVER be part of the public domain should not be covered by copyright.

25 years ago those people would have mostly been in homes as the wheelchairs and scooters were way too expensive for most. They would only go to the hospital if they were dying NOW. But with those things becoming more affordable more people stayed home and had mobility.

I thought that was DOS isn't done till Lotus doesn't run?

With Windows it was over making Windows (development versions) check for a MS-DOS and if it was not theirs (DR-DOS instead) crash with a notice of an incompatible DOS version. The crash was programmed in it was not an actual incompatibility.

SCOG had a number of interesting claims debunked:

Claimed damages from IBM for IBM converting specific SCOG customers to Linux. IBM entered SCOG press releases boasting about converting those clients to Linux. Yes they blamed IBM for doing what they themselves had boasted of doing.

Presented "encrypted" code that was stolen from them and put into Linux. It was photographed and typed into Microsoft Word in the WingDings font then converted to normal text (that was the "encryption" changing the font) and revealed the BSD copyright notice. So they claimed it was "code LIKE this" not the actual stolen code.

In Germany they were twice taken to court over their copyright claims against Linux, their representative kept holding up a brief case with "millions of lines" of stolen code which they never showed. The 2nd time the judge gave them two options, show the code or shut up. They shut down their German operations instead, no one ever saw the code.

IBM ported code from OS/2 to their version of Unix. They then ported the OS/2 code to Linux. SCOG claimed that they couldn't do it because the OS/2 code had "touched" Unix and now it was under their control.

They made claims about a feature of SCOG's Unix being ported to Linux. The attempt was made BUT rejected. Who tried to port the feature? SCOG of course.

They claimed that IBM would tell people of their attempts to add certain features to UNIX and why they failed to help those features be implemented in Linux. This "negative know how" somehow could not be used by IBM to ease development on Linux.

They subpoenaed the source code for a specific version of Linux. That version number had not yet been reached and Linux proceeded to skip past it so it never did.

They revoked IBM's irrevocable license for their UNIX versions.

Claimed they didn't have to explain to IBM (during discovery) what IBM had allegedly done since having done it they already knew.

They tried to continue distributing their version of Linux after rejecting the GPL as a valid license. Accepting the license terms is all that allowed them to distribute Linux without violating copyright.

They boasted of having "mountains of evidence" and being ready to go directly to trial. They dragged out discovery for years and then the trial itself.

At one point they had 3 simultaneous cases about Linux. They tried to get case A paused pending the outcome of case B. At the same time they were trying to get case B suspended pending the outcome of case C. Also at the same time they were trying to get case C suspended pending the outcome of case A. Seems the judges heard about the motions in the other cases and rejected this circle of suspension.

The tried to claim that an amendment to the original Unix Asset Purchase Agreement from Novell which would transfer copyrights REQUIRED for the sold business (selling Unix licenses and collecting the licensing fees) would transfer to the new business of suing customers for copyright infringement.