SCO vs. IBM					 Tech Insider's Review

From: brian at (Brian)
Date: Sun Aug  8 17:30:23 2004
Subject: SCO newsgroup Monkey Shines...
Message-ID: <wkzRc.56064$gE.45222@pd7tw3no>

Hello Dear Friends:

I have here for your review a portion of a document taken from an IBM legal
brief submitted to the court this last week:

SCO devotes nearly four pages of its brief to a diatribe touting the
strength of its case against IBM (yet, consistent with its conduct
throughout the case, still without showing any of its supposed evidence)
and the alleged weakness of IBM's defenses. SCO's invective is not in any
way relevant to the issues raised in its motion to compel and appears, in
fact, to be written for an audience other than the Court.

Allow me to quote one particular phrase: "still without showing any of it's
supposed evidence"

This is part of a brief that is published in plain text at Groklaw so we may
search it as we see fit.

Now, the IBM legal team is responsible for any errors in fact that occur in
their briefs and can even be held in contempt if found willfully misstating
any facts.

Here is an IBM legal brief stating clearly for all to see that despite
repeated orders to compel, SCO has still not revealed the sacred
"proprietary Unix code' that infests the Linux kernel.

Now, the SCO newgroup spinners will whine and wail about how Groklaw is
onesided and the posters are rabid Linux Zealots *BUT* the SCO newsgroup
spinners refuse to discus the facts of the case when pushed.

The SCO newsgroup spinners HATE THE FACTS! They can't stand the ideas that
are revealed on a daily basis. They hold in contempt anyone who would hold
an opinion contrary to their vested interests.

The SCO newsgroup spinners will suggest "SCO may still have a case" or
something as puerile as "SCO has the right to protect it's IP" (Tony gets
first prize for stating The Bloody Obvious on no less than 23 occasions)

Yes, Tony, We All Know SCO Has The Right blah blah blah... (puke)!

I hold all SCO newsgroup spinners (not all SCO newsgroup posters, some of
which I admit to liking) in contempt that complain about my generalized
statements and parodies but who will not speak of the facts ('cause I'm not
a lawyer and my opinion doesn't count anyway).

I can't count the number of times I have presented some juicy fact or
revealed some obvious SCO lie only to be scolded by the SCO newsgroup
spinners for being a Linzealot (or whatever Tony's childish little mind
came up with) and the total subject matter of the post being ignored.

I will continue to mock SCO and their feeble lies in this newsgroup until
someone steps up and wants to debate the facts. I will also continue to
mock the SCO newsgroup spinners, because.. well... "SCO may have a case"



The materials and information included in this review are not to be used 
for any other purpose other than private study, research or criticism.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb: