On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:09:11PM -0800, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 17:19 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > Ach! You make statements like this, as though everyone knows what you're
> > talking about. And how do you know what Caldera's strategy was? I've
> > never heard this one. Nor have I heard how IBM dashed it in a day.
>
> That's because people talk of May 2003 and later, ignoring all the
> history of 1999-2001 that happened a good 2 years before the actual
> filing of the lawsuit.
>
<snip>
>
> Alas, Caldera-SCO, a very pro-Linux company, tried to keep its Linux
> efforts going in the hope of profitability. Once IBM really went full-
> force into Linux, and Caldera neared no funds (not even after the ~$300M
> settlement with MS over DR-DOS), Caldera-SCO devised a new plan. They
> would sue IBM in the hope IBM would buy them out. After all, since IBM
> was really going full-bore with Linux marketing, they figured IBM would
> go for the rights to UNIX.
>
> It backfired. First off, although the "meat" of the March 2003 filing
> was in the final summary of items #49-55 on Monterey, most Linux
> advocates read the earlier items which were very flammatory. They
> accusations were required to state how IBM violated the non-compete,
> that they transfered value into Linux, harming SCO. They were _not_
> claiming any SCO IP transfer into Linux.
Then why did they publicly state that there was transfer? And why did
they make a big public show of combing through Linux source for SCO/UNIX
IP? Are you saying their legal filings didn't match their public
statements? If so, of what value would that be? Surely they weren't so
stupid as to think _we_ wouldn't fight them?
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:03:00 EDT