| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
A political advertisementA political advertisementPosted Nov 23, 2003 9:40 UTC (Sun) by fLameDogg (guest, #11305)In reply to: A political advertisement by euvitudo Parent article: A new source of anti-GPL FUD
It would not surprise me if it was Boies and "company" that whispered in SCOG's ears that they may (howbeit even remotely) have a case against IBM. Why could this scenario not be the case? Lawyers thrive off of high-stakes complaints, do they not? We all know that whether the plaintiff or defendant "wins" or "loses", the lawyer always wins. Do they not? They do when they have a guarantee in writing, like SCOX's lawyers do. Which is why, if some shyster sidled up to me as in your hypothetical case and whispered, "You have a case against X. Let me represent you, and we'll win", I would say, "Okay. And since you're so certain, I'm sure you'll be happy to represent me on a contingent-fee basis". My guess is that someone else, not Boies, cooked up the lawsuit. I'm not so sure the GPL, et al, was even on his radar screen beforehand--I could be wrong. I think the money his firm is guaranteed constitutes a good sign--if the suit appeared to be a slam-dunk, they might be willing to risk more. I also don't think the evildoers in SCOland are in much danger of coming away empty-handed, whatever happens at law. Whatever they're up to, it may be shot full of absurdity (and so it is), but I fully believe all the players expect to gain--at the expense of stockholders, their employees, maybe IBM, and possibly FLOSS distributors or the FLOSS community at large. I can only hope that everyone involved gets a big, karmic dose of exactly what they deserve. I'm not holding my breath, though.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||