Slashdot Mirror


EV1Servers.Net's CEO Regrets SCO Deal

spafbnerf writes "Everyone Internet's CEO Robert Marsh, when asked his feelings about the SCO deal almost a month ago responds: 'Would I do it again? No. I'll go on the record as saying that,' Marsh said. 'I certainly know a lot more today than I knew a month ago, in a lot of respects.'"

22 of 474 comments (clear)

  1. Admirable. by Quasar1999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone coming out and admitting he made a mistake, but at the time was trying to do the best for his company deserves respect. We need more people like that in the industry!

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:Admirable. by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Amen to that.

      Though far more valuable would be folks who can spot trouble BEFORE you ink a deal.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Admirable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, he paid the danegeld. Now he's trying to say, oh that was a mistake. If he doesn't want us to think of him as a big pansy, he needs to not only say it was a mistake, but to break the contract, sue SCO, and actually have some balls. Not pay the extortion and then say "oh, woe is me."

    3. Re:Admirable. by tribulation2004 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree. Someone who lets down his shareholder by not fully researching an expense like this ahead of time does not deserve anyone's respect.

      Furthermore, odds are that he is he is now saying he made a mistake to try to cut down on the backlash against his company, not because he genuinely thinks he made a mistake.

      EV1 is guilty of trying to piggyback on the SCO case to build marketshare - marketshare that would come from other similarly-uninformed companies. The only reason they are sorry now is the backlash, when really, they should be apologizing for ethical reasons.

    4. Re:Admirable. by Safety+Cap · · Score: 5, Insightful
      ~ but to break the contract ~.
      He can't; he already bought the license, and it is "non-refundable." That's like downloading Britney's "Toxic" from iTunes, then coming to your senses and trying to get your money back.
      ~ sue SCO ~.
      For what? The "puce defense"?
      --
      Yeah, right.
    5. Re:Admirable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The business lost so far to EV1 is only those who could move their sites immediately. There are many customers who are preparing to move their web sites to another host as soon as the new sites are properly set up, and tested. We will see more defections within the next few months from some of their larger clients.

      What Marsh needs to do at this point, to recover any semblance of honesty, is come clean. We all forgive mistakes, because we all make them. But the perception here is that his decision was not simply a mistake. He needs to go public with whatever deals or concessions were offered by Darl McBride, in who's company he was seen just prior to the decision. He needs to clarify the MS stance, and any concessions offered by MS on licensing. If any other third party was invloved, he needs to make it known, and documented.

      If he is concerned about any legal contract issues, it is quite possible to remove himself and EV1 from these due to the environment. A contract is not a suicide agreement. He can easily prove that abiding by terms of any contracts/agreements in this case are having a deleterious effect on their business.

      Mr Marsh, we await your next move.

    6. Re:Admirable. by Issue9mm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First of all, I think it was a dumb, bone-headed, overtly stupid move, and I think he rues the day that it ever got out in public that he was in bed with SCO.

      However, as a FORMER long-time customer of EV1 (I moved to serverbeach shortly after the announcement), I believe that "headsurfer" (CEO of ev1) tends to genuinely speak from the heart. He posts on the ev1 messageboard (and the rackshack board before that), and makes obviously unedited statements (replete with grammatical errors and what appear to be heartfelt sentiments).

      I don't believe he puts much corporate spin on anything, and really kind of views his business as a mom&pop shop. In a lot of ways, it's really run like that too. It's endearing, and despite my having left ev1, they had never done me wrong as a customer.

      It's one of the few companies you don't have to be quite as cynical about. Whether that's for better or worse, I'm not educated enough to say.

      -9mm-

  2. what's next? by ezh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IMHO there is no point talking about the past. The good question is what they will do about it.

  3. which makes one wonder... by cenonce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why he is a CEO in the first place?

    Who makes a decision like that only to turn around a month later and say he would have done the exact opposite. If I were a shareholder, that wouldn't inspire confidence in my CEO... sheesh!

    -A



    1. Re:which makes one wonder... by fuzzy12345 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what are you looking for, an omniscient CEO, or one who never admits his mistakes?

      --

      Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
  4. A customer's view by fuzzy12345 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I use EV1 Hosting. When I read the original announcement, I was disappointed, but I didn't switch. I'm too busy to mess with something that works.

    Some people said they didn't want Marsh using their money to fund SCO. Me, I don't care if he uses it to feed a massive cocaine addiction, AS LONG AS MY BOX AND HIS NETWORK ARE ROCK-SOLID.

    The poor guy did the deal thinking he was just buying something akin to fire insurance, and boy did he get burned.

    --

    Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
  5. EV1 by emtboy9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The one thing that bugs me about this is that he did what he thought was best for his company. His job is ensuring the company's survival. Period. Ideals have a place and time, but ideals also do not put food on the table, pay the rent or mortgage, and do not ensure continued employment.

    Now do I think he made the right choice? No, I think the idea of purchasing licenses from SCO was dead wrong. But I do NOT think this because of some idealistic idea I have about the SCO IP thing. I think it was wrong simply because so far, the legitimacy of SCO's IP claims is seriously questionable. Were I in that postition, I would NOT be paying money based on IP claims that are still in dispute.

    That he did, is akin to me paying a license fee to Coca-Cola for use of the Pepsi formula. (assuming that Coke sued Pepsi claiming that Pepsi includes Coke's IP).

    As I said, he did what he felt was in the best interests of his company, which is exactly what his is paid to do. I still think it was the wrong decision, BUT to fault him, and berate the company merely on an idealistic viewpoint is also equally wrong.

    Its almost like people who refuse to buy a Honda because Honda is a Japanese car. Instead they spend money on a Ford (made with 80% foreign parts). They never stop to think that the Honda is built in Kentucky by American workers.

    --
    "Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
  6. Re:This inspires confidence... by AvantLegion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Well if he investigated trade magazines and such at the time, he'd quite possibly get a reinforced notion that SCO's claims might have teeth.

    What's been said on Slashdot this whole time != what's been said elsewhere.

  7. Pop Quiz by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which of the following people used the following argument to justify their actions:

    "Gee, I'm sorry, I didn't know any better"

    • a)Martha Stewart
    • b)Ken Lay
    • c)Dennis Kozlowski
    • d)George Bush
    • e)all of the above

    Executive officers of companies take no end of credit for their brilliance when their business does well(despite it being almost entirely out of their hands) but the second something bad happens, will say "shucks, it wasn't me" or "I dunno" or "oops". Folks- he should be fired by their board, or(gasp) take a pay cut, for the damage he's done by ignoring clearly obvious publicity problems the deal would generate.

    It's interesting to note that in Japan, if a high-ranking company official makes a major blunder or is incompetent, they resign with a public apology(taking responsibility) or take a voluntary pay cut. American CEOs and execs can demonstrate no end of incompetence and take pay raises, huge stock deals...or get enormous golden parachutes. They commit massive fraud and get away with a fine that is barely 10% of the profits they made, or maybe a few weeks in some state-run all-inclusive country club.

  8. Of course he's coming out and saying this by tannhaus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a business man folks. This is business.

    1. Pay up. Support the other side. Get the licenses.

    2. Say you're sorry for doing so. Your money STILL supports the other side...you STILL have the licenses...but now you can get pity from this side.

    Best of both worlds.

    No, not gonna happen. Until those licenses are null and void, I'll never send ev1 a penny of my money. SCO claimed this was a million dollar deal. Even if it was only 10,000 you can bet Robert Marsh knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He's just trying to keep his customers after doing EXACTLY what he wanted to do.

    If you pity this man after this "confession" then you're the one that deserves the pity. He's making a fool out of you twice.

  9. Most Blackmail Victims Are Remorseful by DoctorMabuse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It comes from the realization that by paying, you have encouraged the criminal to repeat this sort of behavior.

    The best thing everyone can do is to totally ignore SCO's demands for money.

  10. Businessman: Yes, Honorable: No! by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Robert Marsh is an honorable businessman. He did his deal with SCO, and abided by it thinking that it was in the best interest of his business to pay off SCO to get them to go away.
    He is clearly a businessman but I don't think the "honorable" part is validated by his recent behavior over the licenses. Consider that he had a number of choices:
    1. Insist that his deal remained totally secret.
    2. Refuse to deal with the extortionists.
    3. Assuming he negotiated a better license agreement, insist that he would be free to publicise the text of that.

    Just as businesses clearly have to pay off extortionists some times in order to survive, it may make business sense, but it is in no way "honorable".

    Furthermore, it was clearly his intent to attract customers on the basis that he could offer safety from SCO's lawsuits: else why not insist on complete secrecy? Thus he hoped to benefit from SCO's FUD and should therefore be considered complicit. The only possible alternative explanation is that he reduced his own cost by allowing EV1's name to be publicized by SCO: once again, in this scenario, he is knowingly attempting to benefit from SCO's FUD.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  11. The thing is by Simon+Carr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know if he saw that SCO would whore their name out like that. I think at the time he was concerned, probably got one of those "letters", inked the deal because it would be cheaper than a legal battle, and then got a public teabagging from SCO.

    Basically SCO has humiliated one of it's new customers in public, which again is telling of the way they do business. And I'm sure that wasn't part of the bargain.

    Don't pay, get sued. Pay and get pimped out as a public relations hooker for SCO's legitimacy campaign. Hmm, choices choices!

    note: I've had dealings with EV1 through customers. They provide a pretty ok service for the cost I'd say. Just for reference.

    --
    -- The unsig...
    1. Re:The thing is by B'Trey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems as though the strategy backfired on SCO, however. This turned into a public relations nightmare for EV1. If you were CEO of a corporation , would you be willing to take out a license from SCO now? SCO has almost single handedly sunk their chances of making any money from licensing deals. It's questionable if they ever intended to make significant money from it, but, absent a compelling victory in court, they certainly won't now.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    2. Re:The thing is by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The irony is that people who have done business with SCO seem to be in more danger, not less, from SCO.

      Thus far, SCO doesn't seem comfortable suing anyone for copyright issues alone; they have only sued people who they could complain were breaching some contract with them.

      For all the sound & fury, the wisest course of action these days seems to be not to do any business whatsoever with SCO.

      Of course, I am not a lawyer...

  12. /.'ers missing the big picture by ph4s3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've seen countless people saying 'why didn't he explore the issues' blah blah blah before signing on with SCO. What they neglect to consider is that as a for-profit business, the company's role is not to care about the issues, but decide which is going to cost more, signing the contract (and suffering the resulting backlash) or getting their asses sued so they can make a stand on principals. As they don't have IBM's warchest of cash and IP for cross-licensing deals I think he chose the right course of action.

    Instead of a poorly informed CEO making a bad decision and in need of a PR guy, this looks to me like he made the right decision for the bottom line (no more churn than normal after the announcement) to the company and now he's paying lip-service to the user community so he can perhaps lower his already "normal" ratio of sites lost to sites gained.

    All in all, looks like a win-win. Covered from the law suits and now looking like he agrees with the anti-SCO crowd.

    Looks like he's got his cake and gets to eat it too.

  13. Advertisement - It has to be said by tannhaus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok...we're not naive. Whether this deal was for $10,000 or 6 figures as SCO claimed, we realize it wasn't something done hastily and overnight. They thought this one out. However, this is also something I think they thought out:

    1. Let SCO use you as their poster child. Any company that is illeducated, wants to use linux, but is afraid of SCO now comes right to your doorstep.

    2. This WILL hit slashdot. Face it....you have a product for geeks. SCO is geek enemy #1. This is going to generate LOTS of traffic to your site....LOTS of geeks will be talking about your company.

    3. A month later, after you've gotten your share of customers that are afraid of SCO, announce that you're sorry and that SCO is a bunch of bad people. You KNOW the story will hit slashdot.

    Now what happens? The slashdot crowd starts feeling sorry for you....and all that advertising starts to work for your benefit. You've got the licenses and now you've got more geek advertising than any banner ad could provide.

    Maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist, but man...this seems WAYYYYY too convenient.