Lan Barnes wrote:
So I think the decision makers at SCO probably really thought they had a
case -- maybe even a slam-dunk -- when they first filed. How they must
have felt as if the walls were closing in as the case progressed and
they found that they had nothing but sand.
I don't think anything changed.
Think about it.
I'm the CEO of SCO. My business is basically gone. RedHat (among
others) has pretty much quashed it.
Now, I have some strange legal documents. I can watch the company go
bankrupt, or I can fire up the lawyers and try some shakedowns for a
couple of years.
Those shakedowns netted me a bunch of investor money by a bunch of VC
folks who don't understand my documents either. It also got some form
of infusion from Microsoft just to irritate Linux.
So, basically, all the managers continue along on the gravy train for a
couple more years. It looks like all the VC's pulled at least the
amount of money they invested back out of SCO due to Microsoft.
If I lose, the worst that happens is that I have to pay IBM's legal
costs. Declare SCO bankrupt and move on. If I don't have to pay IBM's
legal fees, I extract the last remainder of money from SCO and move on.
If, by some bizarre situation, I win, well, I have lots of money.
It was pretty much a no lose situation for SCO. It's not like the upper
managers care what a bunch of open source hippies think about them.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
