[lug] SCO vs. Hollywood (from /.)

Nate Duehr nate at natetech.com
Mon Nov 10 01:07:28 MST 2003

There was some nice links on a prior article that show how well IBM's 
slowly tearing down their house of cards in the pre-trial proceedings 
(they're pointing out that SCO isn't providing a single shred of real 
evidence that their claims are valid in the discovery phase of the 
trial) and they're obviously hoping for a dismissal "with prejudice".

Of course, then the IBM counter-suit begins... and that'll be the really 
fun part, from a purely spectator point of view.

Perhaps once the lawsuits are lost, the silly claims are proven to be 
unfounded, and the company stock value tanks lower than it's ever been, 
the shareholders will fire off some lawsuits of their own.  They'd 
certainly be able to prove the execs mishandled the company at that 
point.  THAT might be the time you'd want to be a shareholder, not 
now... you'll just lose money on them right now, as they've got nowhere 
to go but down...

Of course the problem with that is (like with most shareholder lawsuits) 
that it's hard to squeeze blood from a turnip.  If SCO is bankrupt, down 
and out by then -- perhaps these new and relatively recent laws that 
allow the shareholders to go directly after the execs and their holdings 
will be put to good use and SCO shareholders will get a chance to help 
define a new level of forced executive responsibility in our country.

Things will definitely be interesting, even if this isn't the way it 
plays out...

Nate, nate at natetech.com

Crawford Rainwater wrote:

> For those who snoozed some on SCO, this was on /. yesterday.
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/08/1545253&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185&tid=187&tid=188&tid=88&tid=97
> (Pardon the long link and potential wrapping for some folks.)
> So does anyone see a pattern so far, aside the "cart before the horse"
> once again?  
> <personal rant>
>>From a business point of view, I will speculate that McBride is trying
> to pick a fight with folks with "deep pockets" (e.g., IBM and Hollywood
> producers like George Lucas and Steve Spielburg (SP?)) in order for them
> to (a) pay up with the logic from that being "it must be true what we
> have been saying..." (though I sort of lost track of what their real
> case is now a days); or (b) buy us out so I can sell off SCO and have
> that ivory back scratcher per month and golden parachute today logic. 
> However, the cart before the horse once again shows up, but Hollywood is
> not as patient nor as IP or technically legal savvy, so I feel they
> might just pay off SCO from a risk management point of view instead of
> standing their grounds.
> I wonder how far along the SEC is with their investigation and wondering
> if anyone (in the CO area) has been asked to pay for the "SCO license". 
> In particular the houses that use Linux on a "large scale" (e.g.,
> tummy.com's and such)?  I wonder if this is a dog psychology pissing
> match between big bucks vs. grass roots>  I wonder, if there were enough
> LUGs in the US to pool together and purchase the remaining SCO stock out
> there, is it possible to pull a large majority of vote to over rule
> McBride and company to stop harassing something that I feel most LUG
> related folks admire and love?
> </personal rant>
> --- Crawford

More information about the LUG mailing list