Re: SCO Down News (3 Stories)
From: fuzzywzhe (fuzzywzhe_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10 Sep 2003 14:14:47 -0700
firstname.lastname@example.orgREMOVE (Bill Vermillion) wrote in message news:<HL0FLo.zKp@wjv.com>...
> In article <email@example.com>,
> fuzzywzhe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >email@example.comREMOVE (Bill Vermillion) wrote in message news:<HKB3on.1sJG@wjv.com>...
> >> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> >> Scott <email@example.com> wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:08:11 +0000 (UTC), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >>>> I've already lost respect for the Linux community because of their
> >>>> general opinions re: SCO prior to the release of that silly code.
> >>> Funny, but a lot of the people who were supporting SCO
> >>> through open source development have lost a lot of respect
> >>> for both SCO and their supporters. Guess it must be Darl's
> >>> opinions. Let's face it, however this turns out, SCO is dead.
> >>> Not that I believe they have any case whatsoever (if they
> >>> did, why produce such ridiculous "evidence"?) but even if
> >>> they managed any victory, they are bound to be crushed under
> >>> the tank tracks of IBM fairly shortly. Remember, IBM have,
> >>> in the past actually managed to beat the US Government into
> >>> submission in court. You really think "Durl" and his band of
> >>> (apparent) criminals have any chance?
> >> The lawyer [one of them] who helped IBM beat the government is
> >> the lawyer that SCO has hired. It will be interesting - David
> >> Boies on SCO's side - while those he worked with are on IBM's
> >> side. This means that both sides know the tricks the other side
> >> just might bring into court. That may make it an evenly matched
> >> battle of wits. Of course IBM has a larger staff and more money.
> >Keep in mind that the DOJ/IBM battle was 20 years ago, and Boies has
> >aged a bit. I think senility is the only thing that can explain why
> >he got involved with this fiasco.
> But he has not been standing still. The only significant case he
> lost was the Gore/Bush/Florida against the Supreme court but he
> won in the Florida courts. He also beat down Exxon when he
> was hired by Alaska. His record is impressive.
What do you mark as "significant"? He lost Napster. He lost before
the Supreme Court.
> >Take, for example, SCO's threat to audit AIX users? Not only did SCO
> >not do this, they have no legal right to do this - yet they threatened
> >all AIX users with this audit.
> >Take, for example, SCO's new Linux license which isn't only illegal
> >but entirely impossible to obtain.
> Let's hope these get settled soon by the courts. I've been around
> law enough not to ever try to second guess the outcomes. I'm the
> black sheep of the family by not going into the law field. Though
> sometimes I think I'd get more respect if I said I was a lawyer
> than when I say I'm a network/computer/whatever consultant.
Yes, I want this to be settled in the courts as well.
You can BS your way through some cases, but trying to stick
it to IBM over IP violations isn't one of the cases you can do
> >Take, for example, SCO's refusal to allow the Linux community to
> >mitigate any damages much less even NAME them.
> We've yet to see anything in the legal system - and all good
> lawyeres tell their clients to 'keep your mouth shut' - though that
> doesn't seem to have worked well here.
I think it's going beautifully for IBM.
McBride, Sontag, and Stowell have been shooting their mouths off
non stop. They've been caught in multiple lies as well. This is
another reason that I think that SCO is very unlikely to have a
case. One of the many reasons.
> >Where has Boies been this entire time? Has he been advising his
> >client at all? Worse - has he actually been advising his client
> >to do all these things?
> Since I'm not involved - and we've seen nothing on the legal side
> exepct the SCO complaints and the IBM counter complaints - it's all
> guess work. When/if it goes to trial it will be very interesting
> to watch.
SCO's filing was RIFE with errors, and some might say, outright
lies. SCO a major Unix vendor? Linux a bicycle? Nasa was using
Linux to make Beowulf systems in 1994. DejaNews was being run
on a single Linux box in 1993. SCO Unix has NEVER had a major
market share. Boies drew up that legal document.
SCO's major claim to fame is running McDonald's cash registers,
and they are claiming that Linux developers had to code from
them in order to become enterprise ready? Does that sound sane
at all to you?
> >Boies' name may have carried a bit of fear and respect before but
> >after this, it will be synonymous with "idiot lawyer who got lucky
> >a few times early in his career" or if he's lucky "over the hill
> >sad old lawyer."
> You probalby ought to check on what he has been doing. It's not
> just a few times early in his career.
Why don't you tell me about his other cases? The only significant
one I know of is the IBM/DOJ case, where the DOJ basically gave up
out of frustration. IBM WAS guilty of being a monopoly by the way,
and they were punished for it in the same way MS is being punished
for it - industry resentment. IBM had a rough time in the 1990's,
but now, they are a truly competitive company again that competes
on merrits. We'll see how MS does, and if they can make the
conversion. IBM fought their way to the top, Microsoft rode IBM's
> He's been involved in computer related legal issues. He was
> councel of Napster and Aimster. Gates comment about Boies
> was that Boies was "out to destroy Microsoft" when Boies was
> heading the DOJ's antitrust case against MS.
Boies hadn't ever sent an email before he took on the MS case,
and you might be forgetting that he had a legal team underneath
him to help. In *this* case, I doubt he has much of anybody
under him now since the SCO case won't likely net him any money,
and also will tarnish his reputation.
Also, it's natural for Gates to say Boies as "out to destroy
Microsoft" - it's PR propoganda from Microsoft. Gates would
have said that regardless of who was representing the DOJ.
What else would Gates say, "Boies is out to correct our illegal
behavior for breaking our 1995 consent decree with the Justice
> Without seeing the evidence by either side I'll make no book
> on the outcome. But it is going to be interesting. Boies old
> firm has been hired by IBM. I'd like to see the other players
> involved. An as an 'over the hill sad old laywer' - if 1999
> is not that far in the past - that was the year he was voted
> as Lawyer of the Year by The National Law Journal.
With regard to evidence, people who are right don't continually
change their story or get caught in lies.
It's also real nice that Boies got a lump of metal from the
National Law Journal, but it doesn't lend creedance to his
rationale for taking on a client like SCO. Boies is strangely
silent as well. Isn't that unusual considering how vocal he
was during the DOJ/MS case, Napster case, and Gore case?
Why has he suddently lost his voice?
> I guess you aren't very familiar with Boies.
I know he's up for the equivalent of disbarment in Florida,
> The trial will be like two championship sports teams facing off for the
> first time - you have no idea who will win or what the outcome will
> be - but it will be an exciting game to watch.
Read about his performance with Napster, one of his recent cases:
They weren't too impressed with his performance. I expect the
same will happen with SCO. Actually, I'm quite certain of it.
> In this modern era so many trials seem to get done to death in the
> press - and the surprises are the things that don't come out until
> the evidence is presented in court. But as the saying goes
> "It's not over until the fat lady sings".
CANOPY, *not* SCO, had to answer a subpoena today with regard to
this case. I'll bet this case doesn't make it to trial. Want to
read what IBM requested?
Why do you suppose IBM is questioning Canopy? You do realize that
IBM stated in their response to SCO's latest filing that SCO has
"artificially inflated its stock price and been unjustly enriched?"
Tell me, what would SCO, a Unix company, want with Vultus - a company
whose products only work under Windows and only work with Internet
Explorer? What motivation would SCO have to purchase Vultus, a
company that is in the same building as they are?
Oh I know - it's a way to defraud their retail investors. Vultus
is worthless, but by purchasing them, Canopy got to recoup at least
some of their investment into Vultus - if not a profit.
> Myself - if I went to court - I'd rather have Boies on my side than
> for the opposition.
Considering he's let SCO basically hang themselves, I wouldn't want
him representing me in a traffic court.