| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
...and if SCO is right...?...and if SCO is right...?Posted May 17, 2003 23:00 UTC (Sat) by donstuart (guest, #4550)In reply to: ...and if SCO is right...? by kunitz Parent article: ...and if SCO is right...? "SCO ... has the clear mission to extract ... money" Well, yes. That's what companies do. If the kernel contains SCO's code, SCO is under no obligation to find a solution that is cheap or painless for the rest of us. It might be nice for them to open source everything but there is no legal or moral obligation for them to do so. To the contrary, they have a legal obligation to extract as much money as they legally can for their stockholders. The catch is the part about "legally." While we don't know for sure, it seems improbable that they have a winnable claim or even one good enough to coax a settlement out of IBM. If they don't, then this stuff is at best wasting stockholders money and at worst criminal. That doesn't mean I don't hope IBM buries them Don
(Log in to post comments)
...and if SCO is right...? Posted May 22, 2003 3:01 UTC (Thu) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] "SCO ... has the clear mission to extract ... money" Well, yes. That's what companies do. I disagree. Companies build products and provide services, and collect money for these. The Canopy Group, which purchased SCO, by way of the Caldera DOS example, is using their purchases to extract money. Their $400 Million USD settlement from Microsoft was clearly an extraction, not a purchase or exchange. There exist societal leeches that survive solely by the extraction of funds from other companies. They are usually populated by lawyers who have gained control of a patent portfolio. I don't think these bloodsuckers deserve the title "company."
|
|
||||||||||||