Re: SCO after BSD settlement

[David Leimbach <leimy2k@xxxxxxx>]

On Nov 20, 2003, at 4:22 AM, Matthew Dillon wrote:

> :I don't believe that SCO has the slightest intention of suing the
> :BSDs.  If any, then Apple.  The rest just doesn't make business sense.
> :Say what you may, what SCO has done so far *does* make business sense.
> :Look at their stock price.  That's the real reason for this particular
> :statement too IMO.  And yes, I'm speaking only for myself.
> :
> :Greg
>
>     I have been following the SCO case very closely... in fact, I am
>     currently shorting a small amount of SCO stock (an 'emotional' 
> short,
>     so to speak), and when SCO dies I'll throw a party or buy some 
> computers
>     for people with the proceeds or something like that :-)
>
>     In anycase, keep in mind that SCO has backed itself well past the
>     proverbial corner and is now going down a mousehole head first.  In
>     many respects the actions they are being forced to take due to the
>     irrationality of their arguments are now being dictated by 
> circumstance,
>     which makes them very predictable.  SCO really has no choice *but*
>     to try to break open the BSD suit, now, because the BSD settlement
>     completely destroys pretty much all of their (ludicrous) arguments 
> in
>     regards to IP pollution in the Linux space.  I would not be 
> surprised
>     if we were to see an attempt to break open the BSD suit in either 
> the
>     IBM or RedHat case, if only to delay the inevitable conclusion a 
> few
>     more weeks.
>
>     Of course, SCO's arguments are full of holes anyway... dozens of 
> holes
>     all over the place, but they've already played most of those cards 
> and
>     they need to keep the pipeline full to offset the losses they are 
> likely
>     to incur as the judges in the cases start to rule against them.


I like what you are saying and what a lot of the Open Source 
authorities say about this
but, quite frankly, AFAIK YANAL [you are not a lawyer].  OJ Simpson got 
off... Microsoft
never gets anything but a wrist slap for their behavior so I wouldn't 
rest so assuredly that
this is open and shut.

>     It would still be absolutely insane for them to actually try to 
> sue a
>     business linux end-user.  That would open them up to some rather 
> serious
>     fraud laws that the corporate shield will not protect their 
> principles
>     against.  But, hey, they might just do it anyway.  I'm actually 
> hoping
>     they do because it could result in real jail time for Dear Daryl.

Is there any history that you can use to back up what  you are saying?


>     I would not characterize SCO's recent moves as making good business
>     sense.  Persuing the original contract dispute with IBM would very 
> well
>     have made business sense if they hadn't gone headlong down the 
> slippery
>     slope of trying to tie linux into it, but everything they've done 
> in
>     the last few months has been highly detrimental to their business.
>     Don't be fooled by their stock price... SCO trades at fairly low 
> volumes,
>     small fry like Michael Olson and Charles Broughton can sell their
>     shares into it and for them its a good exit strategy, and because 
> of that
>     I expect SCO's SEC filings to continue to be glaringly accurate 
> (even
>     if they spin them to the media and the media is too stupid to read 
> the
>     actual filings, the actual filings themselves not only don't lie,
>     they lay out the issues fairly clearly).

The media is ALWAYS stupid.  At least in the US.  Look at the crap they 
choose
to report and the way in which they do the reporting.  I am fairly 
confident after
watching a full day of news that I still probably have no idea what is 
really going
on in the world.  Perhaps my Cartesian Doubting is a bit extreme, but I 
am tired
of being fooled and made an ass of so someone's paycheck at the top of 
some
pyramid gets a boost.


>     But because of the low volume larger players like Canopy, Deutsche 
> Bank,
>     and BayStar cannot sell huge chunks without either (A) destroying 
> the
>     stock price or (B) commiting actual fraud, and they are likely 
> going
>     to lose a lot more then they gain out of this affair.  Sun and 
> Microsoft
>     have also already gotten huge negative press over their 
> investments...
>     they lose too.  It's too bad in a way, but I think this is a 
> lesson to
>     Sun and Microsoft about the power of open source and I doubt they 
> will
>     do something so blatently stupid again.  The only reason the stock 
> price
>     has not plummeted is that the short interest is so high now it is 
> creating
>     artificial support levels... but it's the worst kind of support you
>     can have.  It will evaporate very quickly as the lawsuits progress
>     and then there will be nothing to hold up the stock.

I actually think Sun comes out as a winner in this case.  People don't 
have even
a proverbial SCO gun to their head saying "Pay up" if they go with Sun.

Depending on how this comes out I predict Sun will be a big winner or a 
minor
loser.  Seems a good gamble to me.

>     In anycase, I see a definite split between the lawyers + Daryl 
> verses
>     the lower executives.  The lower executives want to get out of this
>     mess without being thrown in jail or losing their winnings to a 
> rash
>     of lawsuits.  I do not see people like Michael Olson or Robert 
> Bench
>     playing ball with Daryl to exaggerate the financials... they have 
> too
>     much to lose while Daryl has nothing to lose.  And the lawyers get
>     paid no matter what.
>
>     This whole thing will make an interesting case study.

Yeah... I'll make sure to wipe the vomit off my chin before I submit 
the paper.


> 					-Matt
> 					Matthew Dillon
> 					<dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>