Indemnity Revisited: The Insurance Angle

Chuck Talk writes “If you have been reading Groklaw for any length of time, you are aware that the SCO Group have been pushing the indemnity angle. They have done so through the auspices of the media, using articles written at various media outlets to say that IBM is leaving customers exposed and even stepping up to have their partners make this suggestion in the media.

This all sounds like they arent very caring about their customers doesnt it? It might even begin to make you question whether IBM is doing what is right because, after all, if all of these people keep suggesting they do this, then certainly they must be right, yes? Well, in a word, no. What they are suggesting is misleading. Not only is it misleading, but it would undermine the reality of the SCO Groups obligations to present its evidence in court. I think I finally understand how they went about the process of handicapping the SCO Group vs. IBM lawsuit. It all makes absolute sense now.

In order to get a strategic grasp about this, I had to ponder what they were up to exactly and why indemnity is so important. The derivative works and methods issue would be highly contentious in court and the SCO Group stand a very good chance of losing that issue in the Federal Courts. They have a slim chance of winning some victory, but the shills seem to think that if they keep up the call for indemnity, that maybe they can get IBM to step up to that plate.

I have written about this contentious issue before, and that supposition I still believe stands to reason, but it misses one point. It did not touch on the issue of how the SCO Group hoped to claim victory and gain some settlement. That missing piece of the puzzle comes from the only likely place that I had previously overlooked, even though it has been in my face all along.”