You are correct, the fat lady is not singing yet. I don't recall bringing up any fat ladies, so not sure why you bring that up. However, the fat lady has been brought up quite frequently as a topic for the SCO Group:
The fat lady may not be singing yet, but she's in the green room practicing her scales. SCO v. Novell is currently scheduled for trial beginning September 17, 2007.
arstechnica.com
The article was reporting on a hearing (via groklaw).
In same article, Eric Bangeman brings up another topic. Remember how you said IBM was probably delaying, in order to bleed SCO for money? Here is what happened in the court room, on this very topic: According to one eyewitness, IBM's counsel accused SCO of "sandbagging" when it came to complying with court orders. The judge agreed, directing IBM to draft her order on the case.
If you don't believe it, check the transcript. If you want to be refreshed what court orders IBM was talking about, it was the ones compelling SCO to provide with specificity the code IBM was accused of misappropriating. It was called final disclosures, and without enough specificity, IBM would not have been able to defend against SCO's charges. If you want further evidence that SCO delayed this on purpose, notice how they always respond at the last possible deadline on anything.
I have not made a single statement in this forum that is false. Part of my message was opinion, but it is based on an overwhelming amount of data.
As you say, it is true that this is a long shot/high risk ticket. But it would be equally true to state that it is a low risk no-shot ticket. That6 is, you are almost certain to get $0 back on your investment. And after the magistrate gutted much of the case, the long shot is even longer, and the potential reward even smaller. I did some rough probability calculations on the SCO-IBM case a couple of years ago, when it was $4+, and came out with a future valuation on single digit pennies. If my math was any good, I think you will see the share price approach that value when we get closer to the court date. If anything, I gave SCO a large benefit of doubt, so a true valuation is probably much less than that.
I will readily admit that my OPINION about the future is just that.
The difference is that I have spent some time getting informed on the case and learning about the applicable law. I am not a lawyer, but I am no dummy. I am quite capable of grasping the holistic mass of all those facts to form a solid opinion. You probably would have come to the same opinion if you had bothered checking into things.
You on the other hand think you can do the same with no effort at all. So when it comes to religion ot not, I have to say your approach has been much more faith based than mine. Maybe what you INTENDED to say, is that I am heavily biased in one of the directions. Which I admit. That has nothing to do with faith. When the SCO case broke, I didn't know many facts, so I was of course concerned. Already from the getgo SCO was making several claims that I knew were false, but there was still soem doubt about the source code. PooPooing all of SCO's case at that time was impossible, since we had no facts yet. But when SCO rolled out the dog and pony show and completely failed to disclose a smoking gun, I had facts to deal with.
When you state you don't care if they win or lose, it is probably because your investment is relatively small. However, I am confident that you have already lost close to 100% of your bet, so the remaining token value that your shares hold don't matter much.
Your continued talk on SCO seems to be not as much evaluation of facts, but rather rather an attempt to rationalize your prior opinion and decisions. So before you call someone religious, next time make sure to check that they aren't card-carrying atheists. |
