Scott Lemon, you are talking total nonsense.
You are implying IBM is employing delay tactics to wear down SCO.
Since you actually have been directly involved with SCO, even been deposed in the case, you should know better.
If you had paid any attention the last 3 years, you would know that SCO is the one who used delay tactics. And when you look at their lack of evidence (something the judge called an astonishing lack of evidence), we know why SCO delayed.
SCO was on a fishing expedition. They were not ready to go to court, because they had nothing that would stick. Everyone has been commenting about SCO's delay tactics for years now. And suddenly you come here 3 years after and say IBM did it? What a clown.
SCO played a high game in media, both to attract investments to fund the case, and to intimidate IBM into settling.
You are implying that IBM might pay SCO some money in a settlement. That is wishful dreaming in the best case, and disingenious in the worst case. IBM has much better chance of winning an award on their countersuits than IBM has of winning their suit. IN addition, Novell has an apparent solid claim to all of SCO's remaining cash, and Redhat has a pending suit against SCO for Lanham act violations. Of course, these suits have no financial value becuase SCO is pretty much broke. I hope Lemon puts more of his money where his mouth is, donate it to SCO, so that IBM, SCO and Redhat get more than a pyrrhic victory.
Even if you ignore groklaw, almost all of the financial press, and other commentators believe SCO's case is dead.
Your problem is not that you are not a lawyer.
It is that you are poorly informed and do not hesitate to spread your ignorance around like manure in the springtime. Luckily, there is no chance anyone would be led astray by your nonsense advice, because it is too easy to disprove. |
