Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : SCO Group (SCOX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (168)	3/9/2007 3:41:20 PM
From: wizzkid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 239

"It is at this point ... a fun game ..." You are a shortsellers dream. Bagholders like you don't come around very often. And you're even an ex insider, so you don't even have the excuse of being some poor joe from the street being sucked in. If it is such a fun game, why did you bother average down? Looks to me like you are trying to recoup losses. Maybe not out of financial need, but for some other reason. In poker terms, I'd say you've talked yourself into becoming pot commited. Your own bet forces you to throw more money after a bad hand. "Heavy legal hitters", come on. The SCO lawyers have not been heavy hitters. Brent Hatch & Co have made a right charade out of this, and this has been noted by the judges. In the beginning the judges, out of an assumption of good faith gave SCOX pretty much anything they asked for early in discovery. But they have not given SCO an inch the last year. The judges are letting IBM herd SCO into a corner, and they are waiting to see the slaughter begin. Boies only involvment so far was showing up at an press conference saying how they were "partners", and working under a contigency plan, and shortly after changed their minds to get billed by the hour, and later as SCO ran out of money to get the legal fees capped, but expenses paid for. Maybe you have been in too much contact with male bimbos such as Darl McBride. Mayeb you're another one of the same kind. In any case, I am NOT trying to convince you to sell or buy. If you sell it all, or buy for $100,000 more, or decide to start daytrading makes absolutely no difference to the outcome of the suits. My sole purpose of putting you down, is that I plan on coming back in a few months on this public forum and say "I told you so". I don't want to be accused of monday morning quarterbacking. Allthough calling this race at this stage isn't very difficult. Not exactly the material that will make me known as a truth sayer. Tony's baseball analogy is fine, except Sox are down 30 runs, and there are 2 outs in bottom of 9th inning. "Lots of stuff going on, fat lady not singing yet" is not a very good analysis of a complicated lawsuit, but I guess it's the best you can come up with. Might be worth another $18000. bet. Finally, let us clear up a misconception: You seem to think a settlement means IBM pays money to SCO. However, both Novell and IBM have countersuits against SCO. If SCO had soe serious money, I am willing to bet that SCO would be negotiatiing a settlement on the counterclaims. But as it is, SCO has only pocket lint left in their coffers, so they cannot afford to pay a settlement and still live on to fight another day. And a very last few words: My first message here, was to correct your very odd claim that IBM was trying to draw the case out to bleed SCO for money. Do you still think that is what is going on? Your comment was based on what some lawyers have said happens in such cases. And your lawyer aqanitances are correct. And every high school kid who' sseen a Grisham movie probably knows the same thing. But being an insider like yourself, you should have known your conclusion was wrong and misleading. Ignorant at best, disingenous at worst. Do you want me to go back and document every instance oif SCO delaying, versus every instance of IBM delaying? And keep in mind that I would count taking a futile path to it's fullest length would be counted as a purposeful delay. You will notice one thing: IBM only asks for things they think likely the judge will give them. SCO has been asking and re-asking and re-asking for things the judges will never give them. SCO is the one who failed top provide discovery in violation of 3 court orders. And even after the final deadline did they try new tricks. SCO is the ones after failing to comply claim the judge must have been wrong, or that they misinterpreted the judge's orders. In plain English: "Darn, we hoped to get away with it, here's a lame excuse" If indeed it was IBM delaying, would not SCO already have their case wrapped up in a package, knotted with a neat string, tapping their for waiting for IBM to come along? SCO consistently files everything at the last minute, and they never have enough time. Mostly because they are still looking for things they claimed to have already before the suit was brought. SCO's management is a bunch of crooks and liars, and the sooner the company goes bankrupt, the better. Got that, Lemon?