No major decisions
Message ID: 236392
Posted By: freecode_99
Posted On: 2005-02-15 14:19:00
Subject: No major decisions
Recs: 13
Actually BIFF, you even sound lucid in that commentary. That's a major change in your online persona.
Now, there is the fact that SCO is a SCAM is one ideation, but another is that SCO has engaged in a priori litigation, Lanham Act violations, possible Sherman Act violations (propping a monopoly up with the old amazing miracle-cross-license, just-in-time one-single-day before the cross-licensing arrangements were to be reviewed by the Settlement Court and Judge KKK), likely Sarbanes-Oxley violations under several sections for failures of notification and certification to the public and shareholders of certain risk factors in a timely fashion ( in these cases exceeeding 180 days), Possible FTC cartel rule violations and other facts which lead me to ask:
Why should I listen to people who won't identify their evidence? Why should I believe that the SCO Group has some special power to threaten, deceive, lie or extort money from anyone? Why should I believe for one moment that SCO has ever been reasonable in their approach?
A reasonable company that thought there was a problem would have handled this whole matter differently. The plan was never to be reasonable at all. We all know this fact, so why not admit it? There is no evidence, even Blake Stowell said so - a long time ago, that SCO 2 had no evidence that IBM ever did anything wrong, or copied anything at all. It was SGI that they had the tiniest sliver of evidence about, and it really didn't matter then or now. Hell - SCO 2 hasn't even proven what they own. They just have their hands out with demand letters.
If that isn't extortion, then somebody has a wacky interpretation of the law. Of course, with SCO 2, that is not a surprise at all.
I don't see why anyone should ever have to cater to SCO Group's meaningless pursuit of FUD and dollars. I do see a reason that they should not be rewarded in any way. Crime shall not pay, and they shall not be rewarded for acting as the sock-puppets for this scheme, unless that reward is to face the charges for these acts and more.
Simple enough to understand. I know you can grasp the statements, but I am not certain if the facts escape you, or you simply choose to ignore them.
Have a nice day.
freecode
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "freecode_99"
under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: freecode_99
Posted On: 2005-02-15 14:19:00
Subject: No major decisions
Recs: 13
Actually BIFF, you even sound lucid in that commentary. That's a major change in your online persona.
Now, there is the fact that SCO is a SCAM is one ideation, but another is that SCO has engaged in a priori litigation, Lanham Act violations, possible Sherman Act violations (propping a monopoly up with the old amazing miracle-cross-license, just-in-time one-single-day before the cross-licensing arrangements were to be reviewed by the Settlement Court and Judge KKK), likely Sarbanes-Oxley violations under several sections for failures of notification and certification to the public and shareholders of certain risk factors in a timely fashion ( in these cases exceeeding 180 days), Possible FTC cartel rule violations and other facts which lead me to ask:
Why should I listen to people who won't identify their evidence? Why should I believe that the SCO Group has some special power to threaten, deceive, lie or extort money from anyone? Why should I believe for one moment that SCO has ever been reasonable in their approach?
A reasonable company that thought there was a problem would have handled this whole matter differently. The plan was never to be reasonable at all. We all know this fact, so why not admit it? There is no evidence, even Blake Stowell said so - a long time ago, that SCO 2 had no evidence that IBM ever did anything wrong, or copied anything at all. It was SGI that they had the tiniest sliver of evidence about, and it really didn't matter then or now. Hell - SCO 2 hasn't even proven what they own. They just have their hands out with demand letters.
If that isn't extortion, then somebody has a wacky interpretation of the law. Of course, with SCO 2, that is not a surprise at all.
I don't see why anyone should ever have to cater to SCO Group's meaningless pursuit of FUD and dollars. I do see a reason that they should not be rewarded in any way. Crime shall not pay, and they shall not be rewarded for acting as the sock-puppets for this scheme, unless that reward is to face the charges for these acts and more.
Simple enough to understand. I know you can grasp the statements, but I am not certain if the facts escape you, or you simply choose to ignore them.
Have a nice day.
freecode
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "freecode_99"
under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------