Message ID: 390600
Posted By: martin_lvnv
Posted On: 2006-07-13 16:50:00
Subject: Its not Rocket Science
Just as there are many derogatory names for linux supporters (crunchies, loons, smellies, etc), programmers have a derogatory name for non-technical people in charge: "suits". Programmers are allways complaining about the poor quality decisions made by people without technical knowledge. I think one of the reasons SCO has wasted millions in legal fees on a case they are destined to lose is that the original decision to litigate was made by suits, not technical people with unix/linux experience.
I believe SCO's suits just thought that Linux had to have some kind of illegal help to improve so quickly. I think they were certain they would find something in discovery since they "knew" Linux couldn't improve so fast. And I think they became fixated on IBM "cutting and pasting" Unix code into Linux.
But of course it didn't happen. And of course SCO can't find any evidence of what didn't happen.
They should have known better, even if they are suits. They own two implementations of Unix: Unixware and Open Server. And they wanted to merge them both into a single version. But I'm sure they found out its impossible to just "cut and paste" code from one to the other.
That should have taught them that even if it was legal and Linus and IBM wanted to mix AIX and Linux together, technically it just isn't feasible. AIX and Linux internals are just too different. Even if both implement a concept like RCU, the code to implement it *must* be so different that its easier to start from scratch rather than some kind of "cut and paste and modify".
But they don't seem to understand. So, when they can't find evidence, they can't believe it, assume it *must* exist and assume IBM *must* be hiding it. Thus the repeated, repeated motions to compel. And the claim that since they found nothing in source code from the last 15 years, it must be from some ancient code. This also explains their whole focus on "non-public" contributions that didn't even make it into Linux: they keep thinking, when examination of Linux's public source code doesn't show anything, there must be something else, somewhere else that was originally a "cut and paste".
Too bad they wasted millions chasing this fantasy. Even their own programmers told them there was nothing there. But they just couldn't believe them.
They are about to be legally dismembered by IBM, Novell, Redhat and Autozone. From my viewpoint, it looks like they are going to badly lose all four cases.
Can you imagine if IBM is allowed to charge them for IBM's legal fees can discovery costs? And if they exceed BS&F's fees? Doesn't matter, I guess, since SCO will end up BK one way or another anyway.
Poor, sad schmucks.
Message ID: 390613
Posted By: paulshirley2002
Posted On: 2006-07-13 17:28:00
Subject: Re: Its not Rocket Science
>> I think one of the reasons SCO has wasted millions in legal fees on a case they are destined to lose is that the original decision to litigate was made by suits, not technical people with unix/linux experience.<<
...suits who were not involved in any of the contracts they cite and weren't aware that SCOX paperwork describes what oldSCO was supposed to do, not what actually happened. (And what happened of course is they didn't deliver their share of anything - instead of 33%/50% contamination IBM just threw away the few % actually done by oldSCO).
I've always wondered why McBride kept mentioning knowing the contents of the BSD settlement. His description of it was so wrong I wonder if he saw it at all before it became public. There's a chance Yarro did know the contents, I have to wonder if Yarro fed him a pack of lies about it and as usual Darl totally failed to do any checking.
McBride is afterall the designated patsy ;)
Message ID: 390622
Posted By: hamjudo2000
Posted On: 2006-07-13 18:08:00
Subject: The designated SCOX patsies.
>> McBride is afterall the designated patsy ;)<<
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires two designated patsies. You can see Bert B. Young's most recent official co-patsy declaration at http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465906041432/a06-9978_1ex32d2.h tm
I really don't want them to get lonely at the graybar hotel.
There are brazillions of McBride quotes where he said something that he knew, or should have known, was a "material mistatement". For many of them, Ralph also knew or should have known that they were material mistatements. Was Ralph ever legally obligated to say or do something about them?
For every dollar that Darl stood to make off of the scam, Ralph was going to make fifty. In my opinion, Ralph really deserves the larger punishment. How well does the designated patsy defense really work? Ralph didn't sign the SarBox forms, Ralph didn't make the public material mistatements.
The scam didn't go as planned. There won't be a big payday at the end. Darl has been pulling in hefty paychecks and bonuses, and his family has been getting even more, but that wasn't the original plan. So Darl may even make more off of the scam than Ralph. (until it is seized.)
Is there likely to be enough evidence to get Ralph even if Darl doesn't turn him in? Or is the desginated patsy defense likely to work in this case?
The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "martin_lvnv", "paulshirley2002", "hamjudo2000" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.
Copyright 2006 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.