SCO's pattern of behavior
Posted Jun 18, 2003 22:14 UTC (Wed) by
jre (guest, #2807)
Parent article:
SCO owns the World?
Indeed, it is a frightening thing to contemplate. Even a
court ruling in SCO's favor might craft its decision carefully, lest
the conclusion become a reductio ad
absurdum threatening the foundations of copyright law.
But the most interesting part of this development is not the goofiness
of SCO's latest claims, but their part of a pattern.
Taking everything as a whole, SCO's principals
are not behaving like litigants who expect
to win their case.
Consider the following:
SCO's initial filing was by any measure a shoddy effort.
What appear to be material misrepresentations of fact might be
the efforts of a good lawyer who thinks he can win some and get away
with the rest.
But how can we explain the oddly colorful metaphors with bicycles and
luxury cars, the silly, easily avoided errors such as referring to RMS
as a professor, the misspelling of "Linux"?
It would seem that the complaint was hastily and carelessly put
together.
SCO's officers discuss the case at the
drop of a hat.
Maybe I am just following this one more closely, but I cannot recall a
lawsuit involving people presumed to be intelligent, responsible and
acting under the advice of their lawyers, who seemed so eager to give
interviews and talk about ongoing litigation with anyone who
asked. How many times have we seen Darl McBride's or Chris
Sontag's names in the press in recent weeks? And isn't each
interview more outrageous than the last? This is breathtakingly
unprofessional, and is not good strategy for winning a lawsuit.
It is great strategy for staying in the spotlight.
SCO has inflated its claims
incrementally and at regular intervals.
If we look at the
history of SCO's ever-increasing claims, we see a careful
ratcheting. First SCOSource was created, with vague rumblings
about finding some way to save SCO from extinction by milking its
"IP". Then came the IBM suit, followed by indistinct threats
against Linux distributors. Then the 1500 letters to current or
potential Linux users, along with threats to sue Linus Torvalds,
etc. Now the tripling of the requested damages to $3B, with
statements to the effect that SCO thinks it controls every OS in
existence. Every few days SCO's front men do or say something
newsworthy, and every few weeks SCO ups the ante.
McBride and Sontag are not trying to maximize their odds of winning,
because it doesn't matter if they
win or lose.
What matters is staying in the public eye and pumping up the
stock. And at this they have been wildly successful.
What if SCO loses its case, the stock collapses, the company goes
bankrupt, and there is cheering in the streets?
The individuals and groups who orchestrated this circus will still have
got theirs.
Anything that gets this case before a jury quicker, and minimizes the
window of time for stock manipulation, is a good thing.
But justice will not be served with SCO's defeat as an
organization. It is vital that the individuals organizing this
travesty be investigated, tried and punished.
Needless to say, I'm not a lawyer. If I am all wet on any of the above, please correct me.
(
Log in to post comments)
