| |||||||||||
Re: SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld)Re: SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld)Posted Aug 19, 2003 21:57 UTC (Tue) by krice (guest, #1749)In reply to: SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld) by ccchips Parent article: SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld) I'm not disagreeing with you, but here in the United States, we have too many white-collar criminals who never receive appropriate justice. Fines for major corporations must often be good laughs in the boardroom and executive offices when, say, the SEC levies them. No, not all, but it seems from my view, many. Oh, DOJ, can you "follow the money" in regards to SCO, WordPerfect and other anti-trust crimes? Do you have anyone there at least considering it? It seems worth pursuing. Perhaps a plea-bargain with SCO executives later could be useful-gee, has SCO and their backers covered that possibility in their plans, too???
(Log in to post comments)
Re: SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 20, 2003 16:19 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] From his bakers part, IMO always seemed that SCO was to burn... (in a blaze of glory to them(bakers), if possible, of course)It is also obvious that this sliping out of evidence was not programmed, even a highly trained TECH eye could not tell much about 10 minutes of exposure to obfuscated code in a room full of journalists, specially when he was not prepared for it... If this marks the end of SCO FUD campaing, wich i doubt, than SCO masters will bury Sontag and Stowell faster than Linux/OSS can say revenge... BUT I BELIVE THEY WILL BE BACK WITH SUPPOSED "EVIDENCE" THAT HAD THE TRACKS CLEANED PREVIUOSLY,... IMO IS THEIR ONLY CHANCE. If not than is the end of SCO for sure.
|
|||||||||||