More SCO Cruft?

It's really weird how one entity can throw out smokescreens and silliness for years on end trying to prove something that they apparently cant. Note that I said apparently, though. But through all this time, if SCO really DID have a case against Big Blue, shouldn't they have shown it years ago?

You have to give credit to their corporate spin doctors though... They've managed to stall for time over and over again. Although, some things do come to mind as to why they're stalling...

  • They're hoping for a buyout.

  • They're hoping for a settlement.

I say number 1 because, SCO, whose business has been struggling for some time already, would probably prefer to be taken into the fold of another company, rather than throwing in the towel.

I say number 2, on the other hand, because... you can paint your own picture with number 2, cant you?

After all this time, with nothing but smoke and mirrors around, SCO's credibility isn't exactly all there anymore... as a matter of fact:

"Viewed against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning IBM's and others' infringement of SCO's purported copyrights to the Unix software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities."

-District Judge Kimball

With all the moves SCO has done; with no concrete evidence to support any of their claims; after all this time and chicanery (since a buyout doesn't seem likely anymore) number 2 sure looks like what they're aiming for.

No comments: