Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Robert Silver - Who and Why (Groklaw)
For those interested in SCO case background, Groklaw has an article about the company's law firm (Boies et al), its tendency to overcommit itself, and the recent assignment of Robert Silver to the case.
"The meaning I derive from Silver's assignment to IBM, Novell and DC is that they, or SCO, may be worried that SCO's case is going to sink like a stone. I think it also means we can expect the quality of the work to improve, unfortunately, so it could drag things out, and *then* SCO will sink like a stone."
(Log in to post comments)
Robert Silver - Who and Why (Groklaw) Posted Jul 9, 2004 15:48 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Don't underestimate a move like this. When I was a kid, I saw The Billy Mitchell Story and watched as Jimmy Stewart played a very forward-looking man who was crucified by the very people he was trying to help, after they hired a new lawyer in his courtmartial . I will never forget that movie, because it was the first time I realized that greed, envy, and the desire for power over others can be far more important to people than even the lives of those they are supposed to lead. This applies to SCO. Maybe those greedy little pigs will find a lawyer who can twist thing around enough to make them look good to a judge, or at least get them in front of a gullible jury.
Robert Silver - Who and Why (Groklaw) Posted Jul 9, 2004 16:59 UTC (Fri) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] Apples and oranges there. What Billy Mitchell tried to do and what SCOG aretrying to do are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Mitchell was intelligent enough to recognize the importance of a new technology to defend this country There is nothing forward thinking about what SCOG is attempting. SCOG are nothing but loathsome and greedy carpetbaggers attempting to steal code that does not belong them and never has.
Robert Silver - Who and Why (Groklaw)...flip it over! Posted Jul 10, 2004 14:44 UTC (Sat) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] You got my point backwards. Sorry if my post was confusing. In my rant, scog was in the government/military's spot, not IBM's. IBM was more the Billy Mitchell here........oh well...
Robert Silver - Who and Why (Groklaw)...flip it over! Posted Jul 10, 2004 16:49 UTC (Sat) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] Perhaps I did read your rant backwards. In that light it makes more sense.
Screenshot of KWord in Upper Sorbian
Sorry, wrong story :-( Posted Jul 9, 2004 17:07 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Posting to the right story now
Robert Silver - Who and Why (Groklaw) Posted Jul 9, 2004 17:45 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] I doubt that there are any lawyers good enough to beat IBM without a case. You can't really compare IBM's situation to Billy Mitchell's situation just on the basis of being right, and neglect the fact that IBM's in the Fortune 5. IBM kicked off their use of Linux by spending enough on marketing it to pay Boies to work continuously for the next 152 years. The other cases are so bad that SCO needs someone as good as Robert Silver to actually get to trial.
Robert Silver - Who and Why (Groklaw) Posted Jul 10, 2004 14:46 UTC (Sat) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I realize the analogy is pretty faulty. I'm just really cynical.
Robert Silver - Who and Why (Groklaw) Posted Jul 10, 2004 14:51 UTC (Sat) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] IMO SCOG's desire (if they have one) to get in front of a jury would be the worst thing to happen for their case. If anyone following this has read the official court documents filed by SCOG and those of IBM, AutoZone, DM and Redhat. One thing becomes immediately clear. SCOG is lying through their teeth and trying to play one fancy shell game. Additionally the professionalism indicated by all those documents, IMO shows the SCOG lawyers to be an easy magnitude less than those of the others.Also the last thing SCOG would want is witnesses. Give all the drivel McBribe has feed to the media, you can be sure at least Linux and Mr. Tannenbaum would be on the stand saying Minux and Linux never has the twain met. Fortunately SCOG choose the wrong time frame for their shenanigans, that being a whole host of people are still alive that know intimately the history of Linux, UNIX, Minix, Caldera, Novell, etc. That's all beside the point now that SCOG has narrowed their accusations towards IBM being a contract issue and IBM improperly placing some code in Linux. It's only by taking a lot of liberty with interpretation of words does SCOG think they have a case. Yet they have defied two court orders to produce evidence. This is of course after many statements by McBribe stating they already had such in hand. I don't think at this point it matters who SCOG has for lawyers.
Totally OT Posted Jul 9, 2004 22:27 UTC (Fri) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link] Is is just me, or does the picture in the Law.com article make David Boies look an awful lot like Butt-head (from Beavis and Butt-head)?
|
|||||||||||
