SCO after BSD settlement

[David Leimbach]

On Nov 20, 2003, at 4:22 AM, Matthew Dillon wrote:

:I don't believe that SCO has the slightest intention of suing the
:BSDs.  If any, then Apple.  The rest just doesn't make business sense.
:Say what you may, what SCO has done so far *does* make business sense.
:Look at their stock price.  That's the real reason for this particular
:statement too IMO.  And yes, I'm speaking only for myself.
:
:Greg
    I have been following the SCO case very closely... in fact, I am
    currently shorting a small amount of SCO stock (an 'emotional' 
short,
    so to speak), and when SCO dies I'll throw a party or buy some 
computers
    for people with the proceeds or something like that :-)

    In anycase, keep in mind that SCO has backed itself well past the
    proverbial corner and is now going down a mousehole head first.  In
    many respects the actions they are being forced to take due to the
    irrationality of their arguments are now being dictated by 
circumstance,
    which makes them very predictable.  SCO really has no choice *but*
    to try to break open the BSD suit, now, because the BSD settlement
    completely destroys pretty much all of their (ludicrous) arguments 
in
    regards to IP pollution in the Linux space.  I would not be 
surprised
    if we were to see an attempt to break open the BSD suit in either 
the
    IBM or RedHat case, if only to delay the inevitable conclusion a 
few
    more weeks.

    Of course, SCO's arguments are full of holes anyway... dozens of 
holes
    all over the place, but they've already played most of those cards 
and
    they need to keep the pipeline full to offset the losses they are 
likely
    to incur as the judges in the cases start to rule against them.


I like what you are saying and what a lot of the Open Source 
authorities say about this
but, quite frankly, AFAIK YANAL [you are not a lawyer].  OJ Simpson got 
off... Microsoft
never gets anything but a wrist slap for their behavior so I wouldn't 
rest so assuredly that
this is open and shut.

    It would still be absolutely insane for them to actually try to 
sue a
    business linux end-user.  That would open them up to some rather 
serious
    fraud laws that the corporate shield will not protect their 
principles
    against.  But, hey, they might just do it anyway.  I'm actually 
hoping
    they do because it could result in real jail time for Dear Daryl.

Is there any history that you can use to back up what  you are saying?


    I would not characterize SCO's recent moves as making good business
    sense.  Persuing the original contract dispute with IBM would very 
well
    have made business sense if they hadn't gone headlong down the 
slippery
    slope of trying to tie linux into it, but everything they've done 
in
    the last few months has been highly detrimental to their business.
    Don't be fooled by their stock price... SCO trades at fairly low 
volumes,
    small fry like Michael Olson and Charles Broughton can sell their
    shares into it and for them its a good exit strategy, and because 
of that
    I expect SCO's SEC filings to continue to be glaringly accurate 
(even
    if they spin them to the media and the media is too stupid to read 
the
    actual filings, the actual filings themselves not only don't lie,
    they lay out the issues fairly clearly).
The media is ALWAYS stupid.  At least in the US.  Look at the crap they 
choose
to report and the way in which they do the reporting.  I am fairly 
confident after
watching a full day of news that I still probably have no idea what is 
really going
on in the world.  Perhaps my Cartesian Doubting is a bit extreme, but I 
am tired
of being fooled and made an ass of so someone's paycheck at the top of 
some
pyramid gets a boost.


    But because of the low volume larger players like Canopy, Deutsche 
Bank,
    and BayStar cannot sell huge chunks without either (A) destroying 
the
    stock price or (B) commiting actual fraud, and they are likely 
going
    to lose a lot more then they gain out of this affair.  Sun and 
Microsoft
    have also already gotten huge negative press over their 
investments...
    they lose too.  It's too bad in a way, but I think this is a 
lesson to
    Sun and Microsoft about the power of open source and I doubt they 
will
    do something so blatently stupid again.  The only reason the stock 
price
    has not plummeted is that the short interest is so high now it is 
creating
    artificial support levels... but it's the worst kind of support you
    can have.  It will evaporate very quickly as the lawsuits progress
    and then there will be nothing to hold up the stock.
I actually think Sun comes out as a winner in this case.  People don't 
have even
a proverbial SCO gun to their head saying "Pay up" if they go with Sun.

Depending on how this comes out I predict Sun will be a big winner or a 
minor
loser.  Seems a good gamble to me.

    In anycase, I see a definite split between the lawyers + Daryl 
verses
    the lower executives.  The lower executives want to get out of this
    mess without being thrown in jail or losing their winnings to a 
rash
    of lawsuits.  I do not see people like Michael Olson or Robert 
Bench
    playing ball with Daryl to exaggerate the financials... they have 
too
    much to lose while Daryl has nothing to lose.  And the lawyers get
    paid no matter what.

    This whole thing will make an interesting case study.

Yeah... I'll make sure to wipe the vomit off my chin before I submit 
the paper.


					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon
					<dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxx>