Linux.com

Feature: Linux

SCO: Winners and Losers

By John O'Sullivan on November 19, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

The end game in the SCO fiasco is at hand. IBM's dissection of SCO's discovery wish-list is covered in exquisite detail at Groklaw. As yesterday's conference call demonstrated, SCO's lawyers are being forced to make increasingly bizarre arguments to just stay in the game. The company's last substantive filing demanded that the court find the GPL invalid and unconstitutional, and all software released under the GPL in the last three years to be public domain. At this point, it appears the entire SCO case will devolve to the nuts and bolts of contract agreements between IBM and AT&T. If you believe that IBM lawyers are stupid and sloppy, and have been for the last 20 years, then you might believe SCO has a chance. I don't.

In other news, SCO has disclosed in an SEC filing that it hasn't issued a single Linux IP license. Its entire $15.3 million in source code revenue for the year to date has come from Sun and Microsoft. A study published on October 13 by Credit Suisse First Boston and reported on ZDNet shows that 83% of corporate CIOs had not re-evaluated their Linux deployment plans as a result of the SCO lawsuit. The investment in the company by BayStar and RBC Dominion doesn't change anything. SCO still doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. And it has no business apart from the lawsuit. Their restated threat to sue end-users (and maybe BSD vendors as well) may draw more Red Hat-type suits. An angry IBM is drawing the noose ever tighter. Red Hat is hammering them in Delaware. They still don't have a clue, a hope, or a prayer.

Despite the inevitability of the result, the game still has to be played out. And there will be more interesting twists and turns before the end. But that end is no longer in doubt (not that there was much doubt all along). It may be too early to assess the winners and losers in this curious episode, but it's fun to do anyway. Here is my take on how the players have done so far and will fare in the near future.

IBM -- Big Winner
IBM has had several opportunities to take an expedient exit from this mess. To its credit, it has not. Instead, it has aggressively counter-litigated SCO's claims. While HP tried to play both sides with its promise of indemnity, IBM showed it understands what OSS really means by refusing to do the same. IBM's solid stance in this matter has provided a shield of credibility for the OSS community in the mass media. Its contribution can't be overstated.

Red Hat -- Winner
Our St. George, set to slay the dragon. As the biggest independent Linux vendor, it was certainly in Red Hat's interest to challenge the increasingly bizarre FUD coming out of SCO, but that doesn't lessen its contribution in doing so. The suit makes good business sense, and the passion the company is bringing to it is above and beyond the call of Wall Street. Good for them.

Groklaw -- Winner
How did we ever get by without this site? Groklaw is the kind of thing I always dreamed the Internet would enable: A place where you can get not only the important documents, but informed and educational commentary as well. The site's authors have devoted an enormous amount of time and effort to the cause. Their efforts have resulted in a well-informed community response to SCO. Rather than just invective, critics have had tangible legal logic to counter SCO's FUD.

RMS & FSF -- Winners
Let's take a minute to thank the man who came up with the triumphant GPL. Richard Stallman came to grips with the issue of digital property years before most people realized it was an issue. He crafted a document that was so legallysound it has never been challenged in court. That is, until the morons from Linden ran out of rationales to keep their little game going. Five years ago, who would have believed that IBM was fighting a court case using the GPL as a primary weapon?

Eric S. Raymond -- Big Winner
ESR was the indispensable man. He assumed the role of OSS point man and mobilized the community to resist. Right from the start, he pushed SCO on the underlying issues, and in particular, the status of Linux. This, in part, forced SCO to elevate its complaint from a trade-secret issue to an all-out attack on the GPL. SCO probably would rather have kept things focused on IBM, the better to execute its buyout blackmail. ESR also co-authored (with Rob Landley) the OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint. If anything could be said to kill SCO's "big lie" PR campaign, this was it. The paper deconstructed SCO's complaint with caustic logic. Armed with this document, any reasonably literate high-school student could have won IBM's end of the case. The impact was immense, making it clear to most journalists, analysts, and industry watchers that SCO couldn't possibly win in court. As such, it represents the turning point. Raymond also managed, through his mobilization, to make it clear that the OSS community is no walkover. Companies seeking quick hits against the seemingly unorganized mob that make up the OSS community had better think twice.

Open Source Community -- Winner
The community won big and lost a bit, emerging as a net winner. On the one hand, people with very different agendas came together to fight a perceived threat. It's now clear that the mobilized community can take on almost anyone or anything. Also, the foundation of OSS, the GPL, appears to have been both vindicated and validated. On the other hand, the unavoidably chaotic nature of the community has yielded some very stupid and damaging acts, such as the alleged denial-of-service attack against SCO's Web site. The zealots that try to carpet bomb anyone critical of GNU/Linux or OSS have damaged the credibility of the whole community. Mainstream journalists have become wary of appearing on the zealot radar. But no serious journalist can dismiss the OSS community as fringe elements anymore.

SGI -- Winner
I'd just about forgotten about SGI. It was dragged unwillingly into the fray, but acted nobly when faced with the heat. It took the blame for its mistakes, put them in context, and told SCO politely to get stuffed. I think SGI deserves a round of applause.

Linus Torvalds -- Null
No change is the best result for Linus. There is no upside for him in the dispute, only downside. By keeping his head down and his mouth shut, he has managed to treat the episode as nothing more than a distraction. I wouldn't have been as strong. Before all this, nobody had doubts about the IP status of the Linux kernel. When its done, nobody will have doubts about the IP status of the Linux kernel. So the result is thankfully null for Mr. Torvalds.

Sun Microsystems -- Null
I see Linux as a single entity. An astute poster at Groklaw observed that Sun sees it differently. Sun sees a clear distinction between server Linux and desktop Linux. It loves desktop Linux and hates server Linux. That explains a lot. In a perfect world, Sun would pay a price for its support of SCO, but I think that the people it annoyed are people it would have annoyed eventually anyway. The case has done nothing to advance or hinder its agenda, so the net is no-win/no-lose for Sun.

Novell -- Null
Wow, where did they come from? One minute Novell's bleeding on the floor, the next it's one of the leading players in the Linux business. They keep getting dragged into this mess, and they keep wriggling out again. With Darl's threat that he would sue Novell for violating a non-compete agreement, they may not be able to wriggle out this time. But I just don't see SCO managing to do any damage, so I'll call the result null for Novell.

SCO and its shareholders -- Big, Big Losers

    Entry from the Oxford English Dictionary, 2010 edition:
    SCO -- 1) a defunct software company, 2) popular euphemism for pariah.
The company may have had little viability before this sorry expedition, but it will have none after. Red Hat and IBM will certainly win damages. Then there is the inevitable shareholder class action suit. It's nice of BayStar and RBC Dominion to pony up the funds needed to pay all these people off. What of any value will be left? Nothing, just a smoking crater in the Utah desert.

Darl McBride and the gang -- Big Losers
I have no idea if they will go to jail, although I think they deserve to. But between the SEC, the FTC, disgruntled shareholders, and the like, there should be plenty of ammo for that particularly American form of punishment, lawsuits without end. I don't think Darl will be CEO of any public company again, ever. Chris Sontag should also be singled out for special mention. This is his racket. See you in court, Chris!

Canopy Group -- Loser
The poison stain of SCO will eventually spread to everyone that touched it. Canopy and its principals are going to find it hard to get respect. If they are smart, they'll put all their future investments into T-bills, because the only deals they will see from now on will be dogs.

HP -- Loser
HP tried to play both sides and looked bad doing it. Its indemnity program should have made it a hero, but instead it came off as cynical and self-serving. If I were a CIO contemplating a big Linux installation, who would I trust more, IBM or HP? Six months ago, it would have been a toss-up. Now it isn't.

Microsoft -- Loser
There is no direct result for MS from the dispute. Its funding of SCO has not lost it any friends. However, anything that's good for the OSS community has to be bad for Microsoft on some level, and the community as a whole has emerged stronger. The likelihood that the GPL will finally be validated in a federal court will be considered bad news in Redmond.

Deutsche Bank -- Loser
A late entrant, DB came out on October 16 with a buy recommendation on SCO stock. The general reaction was, "What?" Dion Cornett, the only other analyst that covers SCO, said DB's recommendation was "a mistake... Investing in SCO is like buying a lottery ticket. I think at the end of the day, the lottery ticket is not a winner." Ah, but then on October 17, SCO announced the $50 million investment from BayStar and RBC. Hmm, was the Deutsche Bank analyst making recommendations based on insider knowledge? Or is he psychic? Inquiring minds want to know. IBM wants to know and served DB with a subpoena. I hope the SEC will want to know as well.

Rob Enderle -- Loser
Nobody likes a shill, especially a shill that bets on the loser. I notice that GigaWeb has a prominent notice that he no longer works there. Have they been getting DOS attacks, or are they just really glad to see him go?

David Boies -- Loser
We loved him in the DOJ/MS case, but he's been a loser since. Napster, Al Gore, and now SCO. One of his associates made public pronouncements so stupid that law professors were falling over themselves to denounce him in the media. And then they came up with the "GPL is unconstitutional" argument. But they've topped even that today by announcing they will sue a "big Linux user" within 90 days. I get the feeling the legal community is watching in horrified disbelief. Nothing attracts a crowd like a car wreck.

United Linux -- Loser
This grand alliance seems to have sunk like a stone. It doesn't help that the biggest contributor, SuSE, is going gangbusters on its own. It was a SuSE/IBM alliance that took the Munich city government contract from Microsoft. Even before the Novell deal, SuSE didn't need United Linux anymore. The fact that SCO has cleared the room faster than a rotting skunk is a convenient accident. Don't look for SuSE/Novell to rush back into the alliance when the smoke has cleared.

BayStar Capital & The Royal Bank of Canada, Dominion Securities -- Losers
Even for a bank the size of RBC, US$30 million is a considerable sum. Apart from dark murmurs about RBC and BayStar fronting for someone else, there is no credible explanation floating around for this apparently irrational funding. Why would these two invest? And why now? Some felt that it must mean SCO had an ace, but SCO's pathetic defense against the IBM counter-claim suggests otherwise. In the absence of information about what RBC and BayStar hoped to achieve, I tentatively label them as losers because it looks like their $50 million will end up going to pay for IBM's and Red Hat's lawyers.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on SCO: Winners and Losers

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Boise

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 12:36 AM
I would disagree that the lawyers are losers. They're making a fortune on this case -- win or lose.

#

Re:Boise

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 01:17 AM
Agreed... what's all this speculation about the $1M prepayment to their lawyers?

If I were representing SCO in this case, I'd dang well get a hefty sum in advance for a case I know is gonna lose big and tarnish my name in the process.

This is not so much a prepayment for services as it is a desperate plee to not walk away with a bag over their head.

#

Re:Boise

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 12:59 PM
Not all people measure things in terms of
money. People who sell their souls to the
devil usually have a some problem that gives
rise to their need to do so, and are not
typically very happy people.

#

Re:Boise

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 07:10 AM
although boies and co. got $1mill and paper that's *currently* worth some million dollars, his reputation as a lawyer might have gone down to a toilet. boies is no shapiro. let's wait and see what happens to his career next.

#

"Nothing attracts a crowd like a car wreck"

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 12:49 AM
Car wreck? I'm expecting a train wreck!

#

writing style.....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 12:59 AM
I read the front page summary of this article
while watching Jerry Springer (true !!). I can do
this since I'm Occupationally Challenged.
I was laughing my butt off since Jerry seemed to
compliment the writing style.

That is to say, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and
agree with the assessment. Perhaps Darl and Linus
should be invited to Jerry ???? naw...

hey !! how about Darl and Stallman ??

#

Re:writing style.....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 01:35 PM

``Perhaps Darl and Linus should be invited to Jerry ????''

I'd rather see Tove kick Darl around the set. Whatya think it'd take? $20 per security guy to take their sweet time breaking it up?

#

Re:writing style.....

Posted by: cybersekkin on November 20, 2003 07:47 PM
Stallman -- RMS (same person)

#

Re:writing style.....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 21, 2003 03:28 AM
Maybe Darl and ESR. He'd bring a gun...

#

Microsoft connection

Posted by: RJDohnert on November 20, 2003 01:00 AM
Everybody wants to claim MS is involved and that Microsoft is funding this lawsuit. I disagree with that 150 percent. Microsoft has no reason to get involved because like it or not Microsoft is not going to be killed by Linux. They may have to lower prices and adapt in other ways but you are looking at a company that has 97% Desktop PC marketshare. Linux has neither the application support nor the resources to kill Microsoft. In the end thats what it will boil down too. I disagree with SCO on their claims and personally I think they are full of shit. But I dont think MS is going to get involved in something that will either compromise their position or further complications with the DOJ. When they licensed technology from SCO I honestly believe it was for their own benefit and nothing malicious. It can be looked at as a jab at Linux because everyone made such a big holla about it.

#

Re:Microsoft connection

Posted by: John O'Sullivan on November 20, 2003 01:16 AM
I agree. So far there is no evidence that MS is getting SCO to do this. They're licensing fees helped SCO the last couple of quarters, but that's opportunistic business as usual, not a conspiracy. My guess is that MS is happy to toss an occasional stick to a shit disturber. That's way, way short of being "behind" this.

#

Re:Microsoft connection

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 01:28 AM
Do you honestly think MS really wanted a licence for SCO UNIXWare when everyone else knew that SCO's Unix business was dead?

What makes you think that MS are thick?

Justin.

#

Re:Microsoft connection

Posted by: RJDohnert on November 20, 2003 02:19 AM
Considering they needed that License for SFU and Longhorn I can see why they did licensed it. No matter how you slice it dice it and mix it up SCO still owns the UNIX source code so if MS is going to use derivative works or create software based on the UNIX source code they need that License. But I do not think IMO that Microsofts intent was malicious

#

Re:Microsoft connection

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 02:44 AM
SFU is based off the BSD codebase, therefore it doesn't fall under source controlled by SCO. Though SFU is a good excuse, especially when SCO are trying to say that the USL-BSD agreement is void.

#

Re:Microsoft connection

Posted by: RJDohnert on November 20, 2003 03:51 AM
Actually SFU is based off of the Xenix codebase, and SCO owns Xenix.

#

Re:Microsoft connection

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 10:19 AM
SCO acquired Xenix from MSFT. Surely Mr. Bill's lawyer minions would write into the contract generous rights for MSFT to use Xenix code, should that be needed.

#

Re:Microsoft connection

Posted by: Mandrake Magician on November 20, 2003 08:23 AM
I keep seeing different numbers for the MSFT market share. Quite frankly, I don't believe any of them any more. I doubt if MSFT has even a 90% share at present.

Linux has BOTH the applications support AND the resources to kill Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or Gates & Mundie would ignore it or Gates & Mundie would have already destroyted it.

I've been telling Windows users this single message since 1996:

Wake up.

#

Re:Microsoft connection

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 21, 2003 01:28 AM
"... you are looking at a company that has 97% Desktop PC marketshare...."

Well, that is not Installed Base. If you look at that, MS has an estimated 80% per an article on the subject (sorry, can't find it now). Market Share doesn't reflect what is actually on peoples' desks.

Also, after China gets those reportedly 200 million desktops from Sun installed, I'd say Linux's installed base will have made a significant jump.

#

a joke

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 01:40 AM
They got nothing!!
and to the microsoft person saying he thinks they aren't involved - wake up and smell reality.
no one will be able to prove they are involved but just look at what they are saying about Linux and look at this lawsuit - it is a mirror.

Microsoft will eventually be taken over on the desktop because people will see what a deal open source is and that it is more stable and secure.

I run nothing but linux in my house and my daughter and wife love it. They just want to keep my hands off their computer because I like to work with it so much and I can't decide which distro to go with because that are all so excellent.

I am Microsoft free and I love it. My machines are automatically updated - always up and ready to serve me (instead of the other way around with windows) and they all have firewalls - I have a dedicated firewall and all my workstations have firewalls and I have never been compromised.
and i use cups and I can have anybody I want print to my printer as long as I give them the key and info on how to set their printer up (except windows - I do not support windows and never will)
and I have instant fax. My other family members like that part because they can send documents to me.

so please take your linux will never beat windows on the desktop attitude somewhere else. Linux is not going any where and once people see what Linux can do they will switch. They don't need to buy all that third party crap at computer stores because everything is in the OS already.

#

$50 million investment

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 01:52 AM
For less than $50,000,000 you could buy a federal judge for Christmas and have him gift wrapped and delivered parcel post.

SCO's been buying time for months, I don't see why they couldn't add some carefully selected politicos to that list... Less than $5,000,000 bought the DMCA. Dirty pool and that winning "screw-the-consumer" attitude are working for other industries, why not their sorry selves?

#

Re:$50 million investment

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 02:20 AM
you got it brother<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this is America
we're talking about (land of the fee)

#

Loser: Didio

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 03:00 AM
"Senior analyst" Laura Didio got totally snookered by Chris Sontag and his 'lines of code' presentation. If she can be so easily fooled by a vendor, why should anyone trust her advice on anything?



As the article puts it, nobody likes a shill, especially a shill that bets on the loser.

#

Winner: :GNU/Linux Users

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 03:48 AM
GNU/Linux users are winners. The community saw through this lame attempt to extort the Open source community. Open source development never stopped, but kept building great software for the future. Open source development could have suffered a period of malise, but the dedicated individuals who have pledged their heart and code to open source never waivered. Now you know why it is called Free as in FREEDOM!

#

MS - winner, Linux - loser

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 04:40 AM
Right now, Linux should be gaining LOTS of ground on Windows because of Windows security issues, but instead this SCO thing is slowing it done.

Because of this, Linux should be considered a bit of a loser in the affair.

And MS has been given a small period of time to regroup, they might end up winning some because of this. If nothing else, it is a null.

#

Re:MS - winner, Linux - loser

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 07:59 AM
A good analysis. What's more, Linux and the free BSDs are much less costly to acquire and operate, at least for servers and embedded applications. In a time when every company seems to wring every last cent of productivity out of every worker, you'd think Linux would be taking over the world. Unfortunately, the potential of having to hire lawyers to fight a nonsensical IP case has to be added to the Linux/BSD side of the comparison chart right now.

#

Re:MS - winner, Linux - loser

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 12:22 PM
It's probably true that SCO has slowed down adoption at some companies. At the same time, they've created a lot of free PR for Linux and FOSS in general, especially at college campuses and small businesses - Linux must be pretty good stuff if an enterprise OS vendor is hiring bigshot lawyers to stop it.

#

SCO: Winners and ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 05:03 AM
I don't think SGI is a winner after admitting they have offending lines on their codes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... whether it's 1 or millions of lines, the fact they admitted it makes them 'loser' too...

Nobody likes what SCO is doing... it was 1 for all and all for 1 battle at the start<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but suddenly SGI blinked<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... who's next?

I guess, just to stop the "bruhaha", IBM should just buy SCO and start burying McBride<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

#

Re:SCO: Winners and ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 06:03 AM
I don't think SGI ever admitted that the lines of code they removed were actually "infringing".

They never admitted/agreed that SCO had valid claims to those lines even though plenty of people try and spin it as though they did.

They were simply being a little cautious by removing some obsolete junk from their codebase.

#

Re:SCO: Winners and ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 01:12 PM
Yes, thanks for correcting the previous poster. SCO portrays SGI as "admitting", just another SCO twist of the truth.

SGI also was very fothright and up front about what they did.

#

Re:SCO: Winners and ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 21, 2003 01:57 AM
MS is betting on its proprietary file formats will remain dominate in the future (this IMHO is where the battle is). I think that this will hurt them. The current trend in other countries is to escape form vendor lock-in. And MS might have to comply with open standards. Once that happens, many of the reasons why people use their product will decrease. So you will see a more mixed market in the near future. I, for one, do want a choice. I want to own my box not someone else.

#

Too soon

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 09:16 AM
While the author's crystal ball is probably a little more accurate than that of most analysts, at least in this case, it is poor timing to call the winners and losers of any court case before, the case is dismissed, a settlement is reached, or a verdict is returned.

I, too, would like to see this case settled quickly. But this case is, and should be, tried in federal court, not in the courts of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., NewsForge, and LinuxToday. Even though these don't come close to representing "the court of public opinion", some will look askance at even the appearance of an attempt to make such a change in venue, and rightly so.

As painful as it may be to wait for the US system of justice to determine the winners and losers in this case, it is, none the less, the best course of action.

#

Novell? - winner

Posted by: Charles Tryon on November 20, 2003 11:35 AM
If you read the more recent coverage of the "Non-compete" agreement, it is only valid if Novell uses the original UNIX code it sold to Old SCO to compete with it. In other words, this will be an issue only if SCO can prove that there is substantial UNIX code in Linux. Of course, if they can do that, then all hell breaks loose, but I seriously doubt they'll be able to do that. On the flip side, they've positioned themselves as a major Sugar Daddy in their funding of Ximian and SuSE... if they can keep up their momentum without sinking those two otherwise successful operations.


So, while I don't think it's directly related to SCO's actions, I still think Novell is going to end up better off in the long run than when this mess started.

#

Re:Novell? - winner

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 21, 2003 02:31 AM
Novell has a non-compete agreement with Classic SCO (now called Tarantella). New SCO has nothing to do with that deal.

Similarily the BSD agreement was between BSD and ATT (or was the final agreement with Novell after ATT sold it's rights?). I hope New SCO will have a dificulties getting a court to agree it has the right to try to reopen that deal.

Joe

#

Counting your chickens before your egss hatch

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 11:44 AM
I'd say this list is more than a little premature considering the trial is still over a year away, and the only thing stopping it would be a buyout of SCO which doesn't seem likely. So far the actual winners have been SCO and their investors whose stock price and market cap have gone up 1,000%.

#

Re:Counting your chickens before your eggs hatch

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 12:14 PM
There is a hearing Friday 21 November and oral arguements on 5 December. These should put us near the end of the charade. It is likely that SCO will get a put up or shut up message loud and clear. That might mark the time to talk about winners and losers. Stay tuned.

#

One Loser that you missed

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 11:49 AM
Columnist Daniel Lyons and Forbes
Magazine. No longer a credible
publication, IMHO.

Love the article

#

Re:One Loser that you missed

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 06:59 PM
I'm not sure if I agree with you re: Daniel Lyons. He initially seemed to be taken in by the whole thing, but recently seems to have realised that he has been repeatedly lied to by Sontag & McBride. His last article showed a distinct cooling off towards SCO.

#

This article is crap

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 03:51 PM
Tell us who the winners are after the game is over.

SCO and its shareholders -- Big, Big Losers

Rubbish, the SCO stock price is about 10 times what it was. SCO stockholders are BIG WINNERS.

Personally, I'd advise anyone who holds SCO stock to get rid of it, but that's called "Taking (big) profits" - certainly not losing!

#

Re:This article is crap

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 21, 2003 02:03 AM
Right, the SCO stock holders are only winners if they sell now. But losers if they are going to be long-term investors in SCO, IMHO.

#

This is fantasy and wishful thinking

Posted by: nomad47 on November 20, 2003 04:15 PM
The end game in the SCO fiasco is at hand.

The end game is more than one year away. That's when the major cases come to court.

The bit about ESR's articles having influenced the investor community is simply rubbish. SCO stock is currently around $14. Before this whole thing started, it was around $1. The investor community takes ESR for a non-lawyer who enjoys pontificating about matters he does not understand. I found his article pompous, too.

Don't get me wrong, I think SCO deserve to lose, but wishful thinking and long fantasies about how they've lost already will not help to bring that about.

#

Re:This is fantasy and wishful thinking

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 20, 2003 05:16 PM
I agree. I believe M$ wil agree as well. And that is one of the reasons I think they are involved:

they are faced with a huge threat by Linux and I have this strange feeling they are behind (a large part of) the funding.

For one, it does not hurt to fund a company fighting what you fear most. I believe plain opportunism is one reason why they are behind it.

Also, their shiny new OS is not planned to ship until 2005/2006. This gives the OSS community almost two whole years to continue developing, advocating,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... anything that slows it down is good.

And when the time to launch the new OS arrives, I do not think it will be vapourware. It might even be a bit better, but what it will basically be is a total lock-in and DRM'ed device.

#

Maybe much less than a year away

Posted by: Leon Brooks on November 20, 2003 11:24 PM
IBM has been pressing the court to basically declare TSG's case fraudulent (as it is). There could be marshals in The SCO Group's offices within hours of that happening, and the odds are in favour of it. No judge likes to be taken for a fool, and TSG have been doing that repeatedly. The judge's only real risk is in doing what Kollar-Kotelly's predecessor did and succumbing to incredulity.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya