Chuck Talk writes “I know this is all supposition at the moment, but if we closely examine the reasons that companies might be behind the SCO Group licensing scheme and RBC investment, it makes good business sense from their perspective. Again, due to the fact that the company involved in actually signing a SCO Linux binary license has never allowed itself to be named (if indeed, any company actually did), this is only supposition and speculation. The determining factors in establishing my research were not who stood to gain the most by supporting the SCO Group litigation, but who stood to lose the most by a SCO Group utter devastation.
I know that is working the problem from an entirely different angle, but it has yielded some very interesting results. If we think about the problem child this way, some clear patterns emerge in their major holders. Follow the money was the clue for Woodward and Bernstein, and in the tradition of such excellence in reporting, I have always attempted to reason the SCO Group backers out by determining why they were involved in what is so obviously a contentious issue and dangerous publicity venue were it to be exposed.
Link: orangecrate.com
