|
|
| Answering Blake Stowell's Question |
 |
|
Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 12:35 PM EST
|
Blake Stowell, SCO's PR guy, is trying to turn all the bad news about SCO around and counter the impression that they are on the skids. In an article in Information Week about the latest money transfusion, he is quoted as saying this:A SCO representative, however, said the company's legal prospects were excellent and that investors would be well-served by helping the company to persist in its offensive against IBM and others.
"Any open-minded individual who has read all of the public filings and court rulings, and attended every hearing would have a difficult time [casting doubt on SCO's prospects] at this point in the case," said Blake Stowell, SCO's corporate communications director.
"To the contrary," Stowell said, "for those who might see SCO's legal battle not going so well for SCO in the long run, I would be asking myself" 'Why is this case still proceeding? Why hasn't it been dismissed?'" This is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I feel called on to speak, since Groklaw can absolutely qualify as having read all the public filings and court documents and attending every hearing and we certainly started with an open mind about SCO's legal hopes, as you can see in this early interview, shortly after Groklaw started. Yet, I have no difficulty at all in casting doubt on SCO's prospects now or in answering his question. Here's why the case is still dragging on, Mr. Stowell. Because Judge Kimball ruled in February that he wouldn't entertain any dispositive motions until discovery is over. And because SCO has sought and obtained a number of delays.
When is discovery over? Here's the schedule, from our IBM Timeline page: 22-Dec-05 -
Final Deadline for Parties to Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material
27-Jan-06 -
Close of All Fact Discovery Except As to Defenses to Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material
17-Mar-06 -
Close of All Remaining Discovery (i.e., Fact Discovery As to Defenses to Any Claim Relating to Allegedly Misused Material) Expert witnesses still have discovery time to file reports after that until July, but the basic discovery is over in March. After that, I expect to see motions for partial summary judgment, at least. July 28 is the date listed for dispositive motions. And here's the other part of the answer to his disingenuous question: the US legal system is set up in such a way that if you lodge a claim, if there is any conceivable set of facts and any theory that might in any alternative universe convince a jury, it has to go to a jury. The judge can't dismiss something like that, no matter how tempting. He can only dismiss something that can be decided on facts about which there is no dispute. SCO relies upon that. That doesn't make their ultimate chances any better. It merely makes it annoying for a longer time period for their defendants. Harrassment litigation is predicated on the defendant being stuck on the hook for a considerable time period, just because it's the way litigation works in the US. That's why legislators are forever trying to come up with a remedy to deal with all the frivolous litigation. Like Blake doesn't know this. The article also tells us SCO will release its next financial report on Dec. 21, the day before the deadline to file all claimed allegedly misused materials. Funny timing, that. One might almost get the impression they don't wish to tell us anything about that. The article is particularly interesting to me because it quotes Rob Enderle, and from what he says, I deduce he is no longer a SCO ally:
Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group, had a similar take on the announcement. "Those that have already invested in the company may want to cover their bets and see how the hand plays out," he said. "Things clearly have not gone as SCO intended and they have managed the litigation relatively poorly and alienated, in the process, many who originally supported them."
Investors, Enderle speculated, "are betting IBM will settle out and SCO will get a bunch of cash, and then many of these investors will probably liquidate their holdings on the spike."
Yet SCO's long-term financial picture is far from secure, Enderle said, despite the influx of cash "SCO could still run out of cash as they are currently losing around $14 million a year and they only got $10 million," Enderle stated. ...
"In short, I think they are short on cash, and the well is about dry," Enderle said. Too bad for SCO. IBM isn't going to settle. That's been clear for a long time to anyone with eyes. But did you catch his point about some who originally supported them being alienated? Might that include Enderle, I wondered? If so, it might indicate that his continued unjust attacks on Groklaw are not on SCO's behalf. So who does that leave? He does have at least one well-known client with a pony in this race. Hmm. You think? By the way, speaking of money and making money from Linux, Red Hat and Google have just been added to the Nasdaq-100 in the latest annual reordering of the 100 largest non-financial stocks on the Nasdaq stock market: Meanwhile, the addition of Raleigh, North Carolina-based Red Hat reinforces the credentials of the open source Linux operating system on which the company has built its business. A year of solid revenue growth has seen Red Hat's share price rise to $25 from $16 a year ago. Google built its business on cheap Linux boxes, and that's another way to make money from Linux. Novell has just inked a deal with the Swiss government: Novell (Nasdaq: NOVL) today announced a breakthrough agreement with the Swiss Federal Government that will see the introduction of Novell's enterprise Linux* technology across Switzerland's public sector IT infrastructure. Novell was selected following a formal tender process during which the company conclusively demonstrated it can provide the strongest Linux solution for public sector environments. As a result, more than 3,000 servers operated by the Swiss Federal Government will now run on Novell's SUSE(R) Linux platform.
"Linux has been gradually introduced into various government departments in recent years, but this is the first formalized procurement process regarding the introduction of Linux at a federal level," said Jurg Roemer, Delegate for Information Strategy of the Swiss Federal Government. "The agreement we have reached applies to the entire Federal Government and will see the adoption of Novell's SUSE Linux throughout the Swiss federal administration.". And Darl told you no one can make money from Linux. Funny. People seem to be doing it.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: morven24 on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 12:42 PM EST |
| So thst they may found easily. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MathFox on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 12:43 PM EST |
Please post links in HTML, see the red text on the comment page.
---
When people start to comment on the form of a message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 12:50 PM EST |
| Ok, I'll bite on this PJ;
So who does that leave? He does have at least
one
well-known client with a pony in this race. Hmm. You
think?
My
memory is a bit foggy here or clouded by a caffeine buzz.
What other pony could
he have? Microsoft? ---
You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 12:54 PM EST |
Talking about timing - does anyone know if they had to produce their missive to
Judge Robinson no later than the 3rd of October or were they carefully getting
it in before the hearing on the 7th ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Semi OT - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 04:36 PM EST
- Semi OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 12:42 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 01:01 PM EST |
"A SCO representative, however, said the company's legal prospects were
excellent and that investors would be well-served by helping the company to
persist in its offensive against IBM and others."
Yeah... don't invest in a company because of it's products and reputation.
Invest in that lawsuit.
I think I understand now why we have so many "IP" lawsuits. It's
because we have too many lawyers and too few engineers, so the surplus lawyers
need to make themselves useful with the scarcity of what the few engineers
produce.
Please note that I mean no offense to honest, hardworking lawyers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 01:05 PM EST |
At this point I would think SCO looking at its prospects would have all the
optimism of one chained to a large cache of dynamite, watching the fuse burn
down.
---
What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 01:06 PM EST |
From Stephen
Shankland's account of the Lineo collapse, July 19,
2001.
Also leaving the communications staff is Blake Stowell
, who has
taken a job at rival Microsoft coordinating Windows XP
public
relations, Ball said.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nice catch - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:37 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 01:13 PM EST |
| Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group
As far as I can
determine the Enderle Group consists of Rob and his wife. The setup appears to
be a classic "opinion for hire".
---
I'm not a Windows user,
consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 01:48 PM EST |
This is really an interesting opinion that Stowell seems to have. He is saying
that starting a lawsuit and still having it not thrown out of court after three
years is a success.
I would have thought that people or companies start lawsuits in order to win
them. To me, starting a lawsuit and getting nowhere after three years is very
bad and the company should fire those responsible for the lawsuit.
If SCO had thrown those million of lines of stolen code on the judge's table,
the case would have been long closed, SCO share price would be at $200, and IBM
bankrupt. So where is the stolen code, Stowell? Why don't you just show it? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:12 PM EST |
| "Any open-minded individual who has read all of the public filings and court
rulings, and attended every hearing would have a difficult time [casting doubt
on SCO's prospects] at this point in the case," said Blake Stowell, SCO's
corporate communications director.
Any open-minded individual would be
asking where the infringing code is... even the judge is wondering where it is. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:20 PM EST |
| Whoa. So is his first sentance from his
http://pl.caldera.com/2004forum/agenda/Enderle_keynote_SCO-Forum2004.html>
S
CO Forum Keynote Speech no longer true? Or could it be a negotiating
stratigy with with his industry clients for a next contract.
What about his
knowledge that "IBM made a serious mistake in introducing Unix code
into Linux without proper notification to—or approval from—SCO, which is the
current, documented owner of Unix. "
Why does anyone listen to that guy
anymore?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Enderle - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 10:38 PM EST
- Enderle - Authored by: luvr on Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 04:50 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: dtidrow on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:33 PM EST |
"Any open-minded individual who has read all of the public filings and
court rulings, and attended every hearing would have a difficult time [casting
doubt on SCO's prospects] at this point in the case," said Blake Stowell,
SCO's corporate communications director.
Ya know, Blake is actually right - no open-minded individual would have any
doubt that SCO's prospects are to lose and lose big.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:36 PM EST |
| When he writes "Things clearly have not gone as SCO intended and they have
managed the litigation relatively poorly and alienated, in the process, many who
originally supported them.", I think he's suggesting a lot more than that he
himself no longer supports them.
SCO has made a mockery of the
Linux-FUD-backers by mounting such an absurd defense that it discredits
everything that they hoped that SCO would accomplish.
My Boss knows only 3
things about Linux, almost entirely from the SCO lawsuit.
- The guys who
made is Mercedes use Linux and depend on it so much that they'll stand behind
their use of it in court.
- Supercomputer companies with OS's of their own
also use Linux and depend on it so much that they'll stand behind it in
court.
- Linux has such a safe codebase, not even the owners of Unix can find
any risky code in it.
I think the former supporters that Enderle refers to
are actually MicroSoft and Sun, who now deeply regret that they chose to
back this bunch of idiots that aren't even good at lying, only to watch them
screw up and derail one of the
key strategies of their FUD campaign in the worst way possible.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John_Doe#1 on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:43 PM EST |
| Why haven't the courts in Utah heard this case?
Utah schools don't seek charges against equipment company
No criminal
charges are planned in Utah against executives of a supposed charity that
allegedly bilked schools in 20 states through a pyramid scheme involving fitness
equipment, the Utah attorney general's office said.
And how long will it
take for this to be brought to trial?
Is it a charity or a gold
mine?
The Buyer's Fund, a charity based in Provo that has given away
more than $490 million in gifts to home buyers nationwide who couldn't
afford down payments, has diverted millions of dollars into the pockets of its
founders.
Paul Merrill, who sued The Buyer's Fund in September. He alleges
its founders pocketed $12.5 million, pressured the charity to pay their
tithes to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and loaned money to
the fund at rates reaching 360 percent a year. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 02:43 PM EST |
| "'Why is this case still proceeding? Why hasn't it been
dismissed?'"
Stowell presents the fact that the case has survived for
three years as somehow supporting the claim that SCOG has a valid lawsuit. This
is one of the best examples I have ever seen of gaining control of the
dialectic. Even if the longevity of a lawsuit were somehow indicative of the
validity of the arguments presented, why should that validity be seen as
favoring one party over the other?
I submit that the fact that the case has
survived for three years supports the claim that IBM has an overwhelming
defense.
Stowell's quote reminds me of nothing so much as the simpleminded
Creationist argument, "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?"
The fallacy in these pseudoarguments is assuming facts not in evidence.
Indeed, the assumed facts are so stupidly wrong that no one actually believes
them. But they are separated from the conclusion by so many syllogistic steps
that refutation becomes a tedious chore of education.
-Wang-Lo.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nb on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:25 PM EST |
In that "Linux Online" interview from July 31, 2003, PJ claimed
"IBM said yesterday that it's Microsoft" [behind the SCO lawsuit].
Where can I find the statement from IBM about this (presumably from July 30,
2003)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:34 PM EST |
"A SCO representative, however, said the company's legal prospects were
excellent and that investors would be well-served by helping the company to
persist in its offensive against IBM and others."
"Excellent prospects", in the "Baghdad Bob" sense of the
phrase.
"Any open-minded individual who has read all of the public filings and
court rulings, and attended every hearing would have a difficult time [casting
doubt on SCO's prospects] at this point in the case," said Blake Stowell,
SCO's corporate communications director.
Another instance of SCOG turning facts on their heads. Let's see who is right:
groklaw, or SCOG's PR boy.
"To the contrary," Stowell said, "for those who might see SCO's
legal battle not going so well for SCO in the long run, I would be asking
myself" 'Why is this case still proceeding? Why hasn't it been
dismissed?'"
Well, two years have passed and SCOG is running out of delay tactics. At this
point, the solidity of SCOG's legal position is akin to that of a house of
cards. Anyone who breathes on that house of cards will blow it away. To
paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, it's not yet the beginning of the end but the
end of the beginning is at hand.
---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:48 PM EST |
"And Darl told you no one can make money from Linux. Funny. People seem to
be doing it."
Everyone of SCOG's competitors is making money from Linux. I congratulate Darl
the Snarl on his business acumen and his unerring instincts. May all my
competitors be like him and SCOG.
---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jaywalk on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 03:49 PM EST |
Might that include Enderle, I wondered? If so, it might indicate
that his continued unjust attacks on Groklaw are not on SCO's behalf. So who
does that leave? He does have at least one well-known client with a pony in this
race. Hmm. You think? It's not as straightforward as that.
Enderle has some very pronounced prejudices which he has been kind enough to
spell out in his ke
ynote address last year. He hates IBM (as only a disgruntled former
employee can) and owes Bill Gates personally for doing him a favor. He also
hates Apple. He
regularly parrots the Microsoft party line: Open Source is flawed, threatens innovation,
destroys intellectual
property, yadda yadda yadda. In short, he drank the Kool-Aid.
Nonetheless, he bailed from SCO's bandwagon back in August. Note that he never quite
blames SCO for starting a frivolous suit in the first place, noting that it was
a "mistake" to ignore the internal memo that said there was no UNIX in Linux.
He also feels he needs to take a parting shot at "the ugly side of the Linux
community" which -- to be fair -- is probably justified. And so, we bid a fond
farewell to our friend Rob who sparked so many lively discussions. For now
anyway. I'm sure we'll hear from him again. ---
===== Murphy's Law is
recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dr.Dubious DDQ on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 04:29 PM EST |
| And Darl told you no one can make money from Linux.
Funny. People seem to
be doing it.
Not exactly - none of the companies given as examples
here are making money from Linux...
...They're making money on
producing something
with Linux. (Or put more simply - "they actually
had to do
some work for their money...")
Of course, I imagine that's
why Darl's so upset.
("What do you MEAN filing pointless lawsuits
doesn't
count as productivity!?!?") [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 05:05 PM EST |
Yes PJ, it has been clear from the start; thanks to
Groklaw the case has been in the open for all to see
with their own eyes as it should be.
SCO as long as their luck last, will find some money on
the curb now and then, but spend it all on a single bet.
The case as I see it, for SCO, by SCO's own actions (or
lack of) is old, tired and few in SCO's business are
buying tickets to this show anymore. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 08:13 PM EST |
According to Stowell:
Any open-minded individual who has ...
attended every hearing would have a difficult time [casting doubt on SCO's
prospects] ...
I decided to check the roster of lawyers in
attendance at each of the hearings (eight so far by my count) in front of Wells
and Kimball to see how many would qualify as "open-minded
individuals".
Number of IBM lawyers who have attended every hearing:
2
Number of SCO lawyers who have attended every hearing: 0
By my
scorecard, SCO has no lawyers who would have a difficult time casting doubt on
SCO's prospects. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 08:54 PM EST |
| ... as white as the piece of paper which SCO hands to the
Court on 22nd
December, containing the list of all
materials allegedly misused by IBM,
with
specificity.
The time for hand-waving about concepts and
methods and
ladder theory has ended. This Christmas, Santa is going to
find
out if you've been bad or good, SCO Group, and he
wants to see code. He wants
to know which source files,
which functions, which lines of Linux code have
been
allegedly inappropriately contributed by IBM.
Merry Christmas to The
SCO Group. May it be your last. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 13 2005 @ 10:13 PM EST |
| The PR just reminded me of someone from a few years back... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
