Stewart Stremler wrote:
begin quoting Tracy R Reed as of Sat, May 19, 2007 at 05:44:00PM -0700:
Stewart Stremler wrote:
That's what worries me. SCO tested the water... and made it quite far
without a case.
Quite far? They haven't even made it to trial yet! What they have done
is drug out the formalities of getting ready for a trial and that's all.
It's been over a year of FUD, yes?
M$ runs on FUD, yes?
With no case and some money, SCO has generated a lot of FUD.
M$ has money.
These kinds of lawsuits take a special breed of lawyers to even get as
far as TSCOG has thus far (four years just of discovery!). And that
takes money, lots of it - so far it has cost TSCOG close to a hundred
million dollars. Not even IBM has that kind of legal skill on staff -
and TSCOG couldn't afford the legal team IBM has hired.
It's not going to cost Microsoft any less and probably a *lot* more if
they go up against the likes of IBM, especially if they hire the quality
of legal team IBM has now. So far M$'s track record in the courts has
not been impressive. And they haven't shown much more competence in the
courtroom than TSCOG in terms of legal skills (whether in-house or hired
gun). Remember, IBM basically wore out the government in their
anti-trust troubles: it was at worst (for IBM) a decades-long draw. The
best Microsoft managed in the same arena was a conviction.
So, I don't think M$ /really/ wants a fight with anyone. That's not how
they've made money. They've maintained their dominance mostly by smart
acquisitions and bullying tactics. I don't see them changing their spots
anytime soon.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
