Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:19:34 +1300, y wrote:
>
>
>>>And yet SCO Unix claims to be the original sVr4 Unix.
>>>Or is it BECAUSE SCO Unix is the original Unix that it is so strange?
>>
>>Dunno how original it is, seemes based on xenix from what I recall they
>>seemed similar, and that is also quite old.
>
>
> Xenix? Wasn't that sold to oldSCO many years ago?
Thats is how I remember it, yes, MS sold Xenix to SCO.
>
>>Quite why SCO thinks it has a claim on Linux I dont know, quite
>>different....
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> I've been following the Caldera/newSCO vs IBM case quite closely,
Yep, me too....
along
> with related cases, such as the stuff with the Canopy Group, owned by the
> fellow who founded Novell.
Ray Norda.
> I have the impression that SCO is a front for a nasty attack on Linux by
> some other corporation.
Na, not in IT terms anyway. I think MS and Sun etc took the opportunity
to join in, as it suited, them. But I think the main reason was
financial, to bag IBM into buying out SCO or getting royalties for ever,
lets face it IBM says it got them 16 Billion last year from Linux, with
a 35% annual growth, if SCO/Canopy could get only 1% of that for doing
nothing per year that is a nice income.
Im sure the main play was Canopy etc seeing the opportunity to buy
something for a few million ie dirt cheap in their terms yet with the
possibility of very huge returns. Yes, high risk (though I am not sure
if they understood just how high) gambling in effect that IBM would
decide $10~20million to buy SCO was cheap. Trouble is as usual these
people only see what they want to see and only think in the immediate
context of the situation and not overall. IBM does it overall, it knows
if it didnt fight this one it would be in fights for ever and/or paying
out for ever, plus the opportunity to use Linux to knee cap MS would not
happen.
There are too many things that don't add up, or
> that are too convenient, or that are just plain wrong to even hope that
> SCO could have a genuine case.
AS it has panned out, in 2003/2004 though it looked like SCO had
something, of course it now looks like nothing, but if your habit is too
hide under a rock......
The fact that newSCO has been playing up to
> the general public, has been lying to the court, has not actually
> presented any specific evidence of infringement, has not even been able to
> demonstrate that it genuinely owns the IP that it claims is being
> infringed, and did not respond to the immediate offer to remove ANY and
> ALL infringing code (if such code exists which most likely does not).
This one decided for me SCO had no case, all they had to do was show a
decent sized bit of real copying, say a program, a few million lines of
code (heck even 100,000) and people would have bought in, then they
could have strung it a bit, but no they have nothing, even the judges
see it (must **** the judges off, here they are busy peole yet here is
sco wasting everyones time). When SCO looses I think there will be a
payback. The judges will be the ones to determine if and how much of
IBM's expenses SCO will have to pay back. I think it will be huge and I
think it will go beyond SCO's pockets, hopefully IBM will rake in
Canopy, McBride and they will have to pay out......
> And then it substantially cuts development work on its Unix systems, while
> at the same time claming they are its flagship products.
It is dead.....everyone knows it....dead man walking.
8><----
> There appears to have been a recent divergence of opinion between SCO and
> its lawyers, and there have recently been a considerable number of really
> dumb legal mistakes made by SCO.
SCO? surely it is SCO's lawyers making the mistakes?
> I think the recent anouncement by SCO about its new "Me inc." stuff is
> nothing more than an attempt to move capital and resources out of reach of
> IBM in the (almost certain) event that SCO will loose bigtime against IBM.
Me Inc will be a non-event it is too small, a product developed too late
by a company with even less business morals than MS.
> I mean, it's just too convenient. And, let's face it, WHO would actually
> genuinely want to do business with a company which sues its customers on a
> whim?
yes, exactly.
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
regards
Thing
Similar Threads
