The Memo is Legit (Groklaw)

Posted Mar 5, 2004 13:58 UTC (Fri) by sreed (guest, #4006) [Link]

You need to send this as a suggestion for the book title to Pamela Jones at Groklaw.

I'm sure she could use a good laugh about now, too.

Posted Mar 6, 2004 1:23 UTC (Sat) by chad.netzer (subscriber, #4257) [Link]

Posted Mar 5, 2004 19:01 UTC (Fri) by AnswerGuy (subscriber, #1256) [Link]

For example they may feel that the veiled threats (DMCA vs B of A) will
cowtow other companies into settlements.

Another prospective advantage is more of a risk mitigation --- this memo
will distract attention towards Microsoft (and perhaps away from dismal earnings and bleak prospects in their sundry legal cases. Revealing more clearly that "little" SCO Group is backed by Microsoft on this case may give their threats more credibility in their extortion efforts.

Posted Mar 5, 2004 19:08 UTC (Fri) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]

Anyone can explain why SCO chose to / had to admit that the memo is legitimate?

"Yes, dear, that is lipstick on my collar, but it's not what you think. See, on the train this morning there was a near-accident that bumped the little old lady in the facing seat into me and some of her makeup got on my clothes. She was ok, though. See...if I was trying to hide something, I would have changed shirts or something. Heh. Weird, huh?"

"Ok, then how do you explain the hicky on the other side of your neck?"

"Err..."

Posted Mar 6, 2004 4:30 UTC (Sat) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link]

Meaning, to deny it's authenticity and get caught would be much
worse that claiming it and dismissing it as -oh, how was it put?-
"A misinterpretation. . ."

I keep wondering at my cynicism, and I really think it's not there.
It's skepticism.

Many think that the DOJ actually has some control over Microsoft.

How many coincidences does it take?

In the big MS antitrust case that everyone remembers, (there have been
others), Microsoft was clearly in the wrong. Everyone knows it.

When it was too obvious that they were just simply caught out, The
sitting judge walks out and gives and impromptu interview about
the case and essentially gets himself recused. This sets things up
for appeals and all kinds of good things. Microsoft didn't get a
mistrial, but they did get a whole lot of time.

During that time, there was change in the administration, then
in June of 2001, Steve Ballmer and ole buddy Dick Cheney -then newly
installed in the white house- had a friendly little closed door
sitdown for an afternoon. Then a few weeks later, in August 2001,
Judge Coleen Kollar-Kotelly gets handed the ticket over Ballmer's
companies future. Now, the brand new administration says that
Kollar-Kotelly is the stuff for this because she has some high
tech background. Hrmmmm, , Well, she sat on it for a year,
then here's a really ugly allegation, a page working for her
claimed that about 2 weeks before it was time to sit again,
called for the papers, then spent all of about 2 hours going
over the entire 4 year lawsuit, and then came out and handed
Microsoft the whole kitty. Lesse, what did MS have to do?
Umm, set up and pay for their watchers, so the folks who
are supposed to make sure that MS is behaving are essentially
MS employees. They are ordered to take a tighter grip on their
spreading dominance in education, what else? not much.

NOTHING was done. NOTHING. MS has continued. They get sued,
they settle. Whenever they actually go to court, they loose.
Why? Because they are criminals.

SCO, dead in the water. Nothing. Suddenly out of the blue
they pop up with all these totally ludicrious allegations,
get the funding to get out there and stir the pot. Linux
takes some very serious hits. Many folks don't think that's
happened, but it has. The press is still leaning sco-ish.
Still, to this day.

Linux in general and the GPL in particular are a real threat
to Microsofts business model. Their products are, well,
nothing else in life could behave the way some of their
software does and still have a market. No one could
pull this off, well, except maybe cigarette makers.

Am I cynical? No, skeptical, skeptical that the justice
system is capable of dealing with big money.

Oh, folks say, look at Enron, Look at WorldCom.

Well, remember Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Martin Siegel, and
Dennis Levine back in the 80s? Remember if you can all the promises
the justice department gave us about limiting this
kind of financial power. Remember the S&L crisis? Remember
Keating?

For that matter, remember the love triangle
with John Sidgemore/James Crowe/Bill Gates?

We know it now as WorldCom with Ebbers being the
bad guy, Sidgmore (I own the internet!, crown
me king or I'll pull the plug) being dead, and
the other players seriously much richer.

The telecoms are so incestuous that it's hard to keep track.

As others have said, don't forget Telecom=Fraud.

And Microsoft is all over all of it, and that's
the money trail you can see. What about the money
trail they don't care to reveal?

The justice department can't keep up, even if they
try. And they have a lot going on right now, and
don't have much of a track record. Maybe they'll
pin Ebbers, maybe not. But he'll still be richer
in prison that any of the folks he laid off over
the years will be out there trying to find work.

Cynical? No. Skeptical, realistic.