Slashdot Mirror
SCO's Plan Examined
kevin@ank.com writes "In the best expose I've read since the original Halloween documents, Groklaw has links and analysis of Renaissance Ventures' rationale for investing in The SCO Group. Among other misrepresentations, SCO convinced Ren that SCO owned the root of the entire UNIX tree, and that Linux was just one branch of that tree. Linux gets a SCO tax... forever; or worst case, if Linux gets killed in the process, then so be it. Renaissance also estimated that IBM would have settled with SCO last April under the strength of SCO's claims, and the threat of terminating their UNIX license. Oops."
3. Raise the stock value.
4.Dump the stocks and escape from the sinking ship.
SCO is trying evry trick to make some money.
Tha's all this lawsuit is about.Cashing in on other people's hardwork
I do hope SCO's claims get trashed.
Any sensible person with a moderately fair background in Unix/Linux can see through SCO's claims
The litigious nature of this society is drawing it into a very frightening pattern of litigating for profit. What happened to the idea that people must take responsibilty for their own actions? Could this be the start of a "my company is failing . . . I need to find someone to sue FAST!" campaign?
StyleChief
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! -M. Python
There Stock price was less than $4.00 before this crap, and now it's over $17.00. I guess there BS is worth something more than the effort of all the Open Source Programmers who actually wrote code. Another shinning example of the Amerikan dream. Not too mention Michael P Olson(VP) has filed for a proposed sale of more than half his outstanding ownership(30K) shares on 11/11/2003. Wow when is somebody going to prosecute these people for fraud. IMNSHO --Greg
When work feels overwhelming, remember that you're going to die.
Renaissance thought it sounded like SCO's bottom line was about to get "prettier" because they believed what SCO reportedly told them in that phone call, namely that most companies were reacting to the new SCOsource licensing program in a positive way.
And according to recent SEC filings, wasn't it revealed that the only SCOsource licensing revenue they got last quarter was from Sun & Microsoft? Hardly a raving endorsement from the marketplace...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Notice that IBM doesn't feel compelled to publicize every exchange between SCO and Groklaw as if it's the discovery of life on Mars....
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Besides Linux, they even got Minix and Xinu in there, which were both written from scratch, and are published in their entirety in books. Hmm...
I get it now! They took a chart that had lots of Unix -like operating systems on it (i.e. Xinu, Linux, etc.) and when they came out, and they added some dashed lines to hook them all up! In particular the dashed green line from V7 Unix to Sinix to Unicos and Xinu (which they didn't quite actualy connect) and then down and over to the start of Linux.
Didn't they realize that adding lines to a chart doesn't make it true?!?
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
Idiots.
They didn't bother to check any of the information presented.
They did do any research into the market or Linux or SCO. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. They took SCO's press releases as gospel.
They're idiots and anyone who invests based upon their advice is also an idiot.
See how well the SCO FUD has worked? You think there is some claim against Linux, when actually the only legal claim SCO has actually made so far is against certain extensions of the 2.4 kernel (such as JFS support).
A good many ditros do not, and never have even included those extensions.
Everything else is SCO claiming they claim, without actually claiming it, and then relying on public perception to equate the actual claim with the claimed claims.
And, of course, the second SCO bother to actually identify any code that actually infringes it will be written out of Linux in a matter of a few days and Linux will be "safe" again.
That's why SCO will actually, in the long run, refuse to defend their claims in court where such code will have to be made public knowledge.
Therefore Linux is not only safe, it's safe.
KFG
I know this if offtopic, but the war in Iraq is a perfect example of this.
GWB claims the Brits claim they have evidence of Iraq asking Niger for Uranium.
When the crap hits the fan, and the whole thing is exposed as a sham and an obvious one at that, Don Rumsfeld say, and I quote. "Technically this is correct."
The inferrence was that we KNEW Iraq had WMD, when we were not sure at all. The claim about the claims were much stronger than the claims themselves.
So, SCO is simply playing follow the leader. This, IMHO is completely dispicable, and deserves more than a simple mocking. Frankly, I think people ought to go to jail for these kinds of deceptions, esp when the public relies on them for investing, or for going to war.
If one has a case, simply be upfront and lay it out on the table. If you do have a case, then it's merit will be quickly apparent. If you don't, you can't afford to do this. You have to claim "we have to keep it secret" so that everyone will have no real basis for making an informed decision.
Secrecy, PR BS and "cloak and dagger" insinuations is at the heart of all lies and deceptions.
The moral is...When you hear someone say - "Well, we *know* it's true, but for reason X we can't tell you/show our proof, just trust us. Then run like hell. You've just been lied to in the most blatant way.
Cheers,
Greg
While I agree there are some real idiots sitting on the bench, some of the examples you site are complete BS. In the case of Lee West, his ruling was simply that there was nothing stated in the enforcing agency's charter that would give it the power to enforce a do not call list. You may not agree with the ruling in this particular case, but limiting government agencies to their actual rules and charters is a damn good idea. Congress just added it to the charter, problem solved.
Now as far as the pledge of allegiance is concerned, hell yeah it should be changed. What part of separation of church and state do you not understand? Kids are required to be at school, and required in many schools to say the pledge. If they say the pledge they are acknolodging a god, and dont forget, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. The pledge as originally written did not even include the words "under god" in it, and the family of the original writer protested its addition during the cold war.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
You're completely backwards there. The Pledge of Allegance, teacher-led in a classroom, cannot be considered a "free" act -- it is coerced. Even though technically a student may opt out of it, peer pressure makes this impossible most of the time. As such, the 9th circut's ruling was a blow for the free exercise of relilgion.
You have to remember that the term "religion" means more than just judeo/christian/muslim beliefs. It also encompasses beleif systems in which God is thought not to exist, or at least is not to be worshipped.
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell