From: Adam Flinton 

http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-1017308.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=new
s

Bizarre is not the word.....if SCO were a person they'd be forced to take
medication. Some choice bits:

First a masterfull non-answer to a direct question:

"There's a widespread perception SCO is doing this to make a quick
buck because your core business hasn't panned out. What's your response? We
are taking these actions to protect our property. It's a little bit as if
you have a jewelry store and you have some very valuable diamonds in it,
and one day you wake up and realize people are walking into your store and
taking the diamonds and not paying on the way out. Now we are stepping up
and saying, "Hold on, you've got to go through this cash register
first."

I understand why people don't like it, because they've been used to taking
things out for free. But it doesn't fundamentally change our rights, and
fundamentally it doesn't change the responsibility we have to our
shareholders to be protecting our rights.

Then a piece of l;ovely fantasy:

"It's been suggested that if IBM wanted to settle this quickly, they
could just buy you out. Is that a possibility? We're not trying to sell the
company; we're trying to enforce our rights. We believe that in the
marketplace we operate in--just take our UnixWare operating system that
competes straight up against Red Hat--if you look at the marketplace over
the last two years, there've been 2 million servers shipped into the
market. Our UnixWare price tag of
$1,500 would have generated $3.5 billion in revenue for us."

So "if" Unixware "had" generated the same level of
sales etc as linux (instead of linux???) then it "would" have
generated 3.5 bill USD for SCO.

A) Hah. SCO tried & failed to sell onto the Intel platform in those numbers.

B) They would have been crushed by MS/Windows just as they had been again & again

C) If that "had" happened then Darl McBride & his motley ship
of fools would not now be running SCO as Caldera would have been able to
buy SCO. He'd be leaping out at traffc lights offering to clean people's
windscreens.

Next a bit of serious revisionism:

" If you go back a few years, SCO was one of the main backers of
Linux. How much of the reaction from the open-source community stems from
that? There's probably some merit to that. The reality is we were doing
Linux. We kept these two businesses separated, and along the way, what you
find is that the companies who are benefiting and profiting from Linux are
not the distributors, which is the part of the chain we were involved in.

A lot of the distributors that did their big IPOs in the late 1999-to-2000
time frame, many of those have gone out of business or not done well. The
business of distributing Linux for free is not doing well. "

OK

A) Caldera was a main backer of Linux. Caldera bought SCO not the other way
around. i.e a linux distributor bought SCO.

B) WRT the 2nd paragraph...Caldera IPO'ed & used the money to buy SCO
& thus Darl has a job. Given they have not (yet) gone out of business
then one must assume SCO have "not done well".


"Meanwhile, the open-source community seems to feel SCO has betrayed
them. Clearly, there's an element of family feud involved. I believe, as
the situation unfolds, people will see what we have. We've spent hundreds
of millions of dollars on our Unix-related properties, and that's what's
under attack right now, and that's what's showing up inside Linux. The more
rational minds start to come to grips with what's really happening here, we
believe that the community will come to be a little bit more reasonable in
how they view us and how they deal with us."

Dream on dude you're going down. Say hullo to enron & global crossing.



Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4