SCO fizzles

[Alma J Wetzker]

> Richard Thompson <mergannt at nushtel.com> 23 Aug 2003 18:13:13 -0800
> On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 15:21, Bill Campbell wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>>It appears to me that the SCO folks like Darl may be trying to establish a
>>possible insanity defense if they're ever charged with attempting to
>>manipulate their stock price.  Their most recent charges that IBM is
>>orchestrating the opposition is about the most ridiculous thing I've heard
>>in ages.  Come to think of it though, this may be an indication that it
>>really is Microsoft that's behind much of SCO's posturing considering that
>>it was found that M$ was in fact paying people to write letters to the
>>editor and similar activities during their anti-trust trials.
> 
> <snip>
> An insanity defense makes a certain amount of sense.  Perhaps, however,
> the recent lunatic ravings of Darl McBride to the SCO forum members that
> IBM is orchestrating the open source response to the SCO -v- IBM suit
> may have a less obvious purpose - a first strike to divert attention
> away from the puppeteers at Microsoft who are pulling SCO's strings,
> i.e. lie first, lie loud, lie often and repeatedly, and chances are good
> - well, you get the picture.  Out of curiosity, except for a few reports
> of cash infusions for useless licenses and outdated tech, there seems to
> have been a fair amount of silence on the MS/SCO connection.  Any ideas
> why?

My guess is that they are not as involved as we would like to believe. 
Much as SCO's blathering is to the benefit of M$, I don't think they are 
orchestrating it.  Sun is also a backer of SCO with _LOTS_ to lose if 
linux catches on.  Remember that Caldera was birthed by a lawsuit with 
M$ over DR-DOS not working with Windoze.  (They won for big bucks.)

The current SCO management does not seem to have a clue how the industry 
works.  That plus equal parts greed and stupidity are sufficient reason 
for their actions and claims.  Much as I _WANT_ M$ to be involved and, 
more importantly, caught driving this thing it is a far simpler 
explanation that Darl and Co. are incompetent and want to drive their 
stock value up anyway.  Think about it.  They are not old men.  Where 
are they ever going to work as executives again?

     -- Alma