decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Exhibit 51, in which SCO guesses wrong as to why no one likes them - IBM's Greatest Hits
Monday, April 02 2007 @ 08:57 AM EDT

One of the jewels hidden amongst the enormous list of exhibits IBM filed with its summary judgment motions now awaiting the court's rulings is one I decided it would be a pleasure to do as text myself, titled:
"Persons or Entities Whose Relationship with SCO IBM Is Alleged to Have Interfered with, Such that SCO Was Damaged, that Are the Subject of SCO's Claims against IBM - Identified by Mr. McBride at Deposition", marked as Exhibit No. 1035 to the December 2, 2005 Deposition of Darl McBride

It was submitted by IBM as Exhibit 51, one of the 597 exhibits we've taken to calling IBM's Greatest Hits.

It's, to me, the SCO litigation in abbreviated form, with all the over-the-top paranoid kookiness and panache in full bloom. Groklaw is listed as one of the entities whose relationship with SCO IBM supposedly interfered with. Naturally, that came as a shock to me, since I have never had a relationship with SCO, nor do I desire one, hence there was nothing to be interfered with. And I may state for the record without fear of contradiction that no one needed to inspire me to view SCO's activities as I do. My own heart and brain were able to parse that out with no outside influence at all. Brainiac that I am.

When I started Groklaw, here's how many IBM employees I knew: none. If you read the first article I ever wrote about SCO back in mid-May of 2003, SCO Falls Downstairs, Hitting its Head on Every Step , I believe you'll find my lip already sufficiently curled.

The title says it all, but here's a snip:

Some have said that if SCO is successful in its litigation, "it could undermine one of the basic tenets of the open software movement, of which Linux has been the most successful example. Linux is a Unix derivative..."

Pardon my curled lip.

Regarding SCO's claims, first, Linux , the kernel, is not a "Unix derivative". It was written from scratch....

What is so weird about the SCO position is it has avoided specifying exactly what code they claim is allegedly copied. They say they'll show it at trial, which is obviously a long way off. Meanwhile, they are causing a lot of PR damage.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is...

Hmm... you don't suppose? ...

How weirdly coincidental: Recently Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer said Linux "customers will never really know who stands behind this product."

Why, that's exactly what SCO is saying it its complaint. It is known that SCO is having money troubles. Could it be... ??

...The consensus is that, while no one but the parties can yet know the true facts as to the contract dispute between IBM and SCO, as far as the Linux kernel is concerned, there probably isn't anything to fear but fear itself.

And that, in a phrase, may be exactly what this is all about. Good Olde Fud takes another turn around the block.

Was I right or was I right?

But my point is, there was nothing for IBM to do. I already had analyzed the litigation, and while in the early days I had no idea who was right about the contract issues, and said so, I thought it was likely a bogus lawsuit from the very beginning as far as the kernel and any copyright infringement was concerned. Thinking isn't proving, so Groklaw set off on a quest to find the truth, and everything we found we posted, so you could verify it for yourself. That is because my view of FUD is that it can't stand the light of day, like the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz, who melted to death on contact with water. If this was to be a FUDfest, I thought, the solution was facts and more facts, and that is exactly what Groklaw did, present facts from our group research. If it proved SCO wrong, over and over and over, so be it. We didn't create the facts. We just dug them up.

So, when I read this exhibit, I laughed. Not only is Groklaw listed, in a class by itself, but it seems IBM interfered with SCO's relationship with IBM Japan. Um. Huh? And with Rob Enderle and Laura DiDio, although they mispell her name. Also listed is the Free Software Foundation. I believe there was no love lost there already. And "a Certain NY Taxi Cab Company". Ah! The endless mysteries of SCO.

IBM interfered with SCO's relationship with Red Hat too, it seems by this list. Hmm. I'm thinking SCO's announcing to the media that there was day of reckoning coming for Red Hat might have been enough, without any IBM contribution. You think? The court in Delaware thought so, judging from this 2004 ruling:

c. Plaintiff Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") has alleged that defendant SCO is engaged in a campaign to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the LINUX operating system, with resulting direct harm to Red Hat. Moreover, Red Hat has submitted multiple press releases which indicate that SCO, in fact, has embarked on a campaign to protect its proprietary interests in its UNIX OS, particularly as against the LINUX industry which, SCO claims, is illegally appropriating its UNIX source code. ... Although SCO chose as its first adversary International Business Machines Corporation ... nevertheless, SCO has publicly stated that it has issues with Red Hat, that it will likely file a new suit or amend its controversial lawsuit against IBM to target other companies" like Red Hat in the LINUX industry, that "[t]here will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat," and that "chances for negotiating with such companies [as Red Hat] appear to be slim."

d. Under these circumstances, the court concludes that SCO's conduct has created a reasonable apprehension of suit.

Get it? It's SCO's own conduct that created the problem. Yet to SCO, IBM interfered with SCO's relationship with Red Hat. Oh, and SCO's relationship with the members of United Linux too, to hear SCO tell it. If SCO would just sit down, with their head resting on one fist for a second, like the Rodin statue, and ponder their own behavior, they might find themselves hit on the noggin with a cluestick as to why folks would prefer not to have a relationship with SCO. If you declare Linux massively infringes Unix, sue a Linux end user and Unix licensee for alleged copyright infringement, declare that there could be legal dangers to distributing or using Linux, might that get the members of United Linux in a tizzy, without IBM having to lift a finger?

See, that's SCO's problem. They lack introspection. I have a relative like that. Whatever happens that is negative, no matter if she has caused it all by herself, it's always someone else's fault, in her eyes. It's never her. She gets really mad too, which is kind of funny or kind of annoying, depending on one's mood. However, at least she sees a psychiatrist, so there's some hope for her. SCO's divine comedy interpretation of events, that it is the sad victim of outside forces, is a harder nut to crack.

As you know, the list from SCO kept changing and a lot of the entities and folks on this list got dropped, including -- I think -- Groklaw, as you can see from the transcript of the hearing on IBM's motions for summary judgment on SCO's interference and unfair competition claims. But here it is, a funny and annoying Groklaw moment in the SCO saga, immortalized and searchable in plain text.

Anyway, the exhibit is priceless, so it seemed worth it to transcribe this beauty of paranoia -- or cynical pretense -- depending on how you look at it, so we have something to show folks in the future who ask us, why did SCO do it? What was it all about? If they are techies, we already have plenty to show them, but if they are not, I was thinking we could just show them this document, SCO in a Nutshell.

So to speak.

And we can tell them, it was much ado about nothing. Thin air. Nonsense. FUD. The stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world.

But it damaged a lot of decent folks. For absolutely nothing. Including me. That is the part that isn't so funny.

*********************************

EXHIBIT 51

PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH SCO IBM IS
ALLEGED TO HAVE INTERFERED WITH, SUCH THAT SCO WAS
DAMAGED, THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF SCO'S CLAIMS AGAINST IBM
-- IDENTIFIED BY MR. MCBRIDE AT DEPOSITION

Set 1: Members of United Linux

Turbo Linux
Connectiva
SUSE
The United Linux Organization

Set 2: Customers

PCMS
Budgens (maybe)
A Certain NY Taxi Cab Company
IBM Japan

Set 3: Third Party Software and Hardware Vendors

Compaq
Informix
Oracle
Dialogic
Progress
Dell
Unisys
Cybase
Enterprise DB
Symphonics

Set 4: Industry Event Companies

Etre
CNBC
Entity Above a Certain OpenSource Business Conference Company Sponsoring John Terpstra's OpenSource Conference

2

Set 5: So-Called "Chicago 7"

Novell
Intel
Oracle
HP
Dell
Red Hat

Set 6: Industry Analysts

Rob Enderle (with Gartner)
OSDL
Laura Dido (with Yankee Group)

Set 7: Project Monterey Group

Intel
Compaq
HP
Bull
Oracle

Set 8: Standards Bodies or Companies Related to Standards Bodies

Open Group
Free Software Foundation
OSDL
Cygnus

Set 9: SCO Investors

Canopy Group
Baystar

Set 10: Media

Groklaw

3

  


Exhibit 51, in which SCO guesses wrong as to why no one likes them - IBM's Greatest Hits | 303 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Exhibit 51, in which SCO guesses as to why no one likes them - IBM's Greatest Hits
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 09:03 AM EDT
Wasn't that filed under penalty of perjury?

Someday we'll see...

Anonymous Coward

[ Reply to This | # ]

I do hope your not thinking of gloating!
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 09:06 AM EDT
This is starting to make shooting fish in a barrel look hard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My personal Guess:
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 09:08 AM EDT
Why no one wants a "relationship" with SCO;

"Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are
what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal
standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with
copyrights."-- SCO PR, 2003-06-02

---
If you love your bike, let it go.
If it comes back, you high sided.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Facts proven again and again and again?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 09:29 AM EDT
AFAIK the Linux kernel is not free of SCOX copyright infringement, nor developed
from scratch. Where else do those 326 lines come from which IBM has no
reasonable explanation for?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have never had a relationship with SCO
Authored by: Saturn on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 09:33 AM EDT
You have.

It just hasn't been very friendly. :o)

---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My own opinion, and very humble one too.
Which is probably why I'm not a lawyer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[ Reply to This | # ]

You missed a great one.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 09:47 AM EDT
SuSE! That's right IBM messed up SCO's relationship with a division of Novell.
Must have been right before SCO sued them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Was I right or was I right?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 09:54 AM EDT
You was right!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Exhibit 51? Wouldn't AREA 51 be a better title? (n/t)
Authored by: PTrenholme on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 10:17 AM EDT

---
IANAL, just a retired statistician

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 11:43 AM EDT
We need a little change of pace sometimes.
Make links clickable, and read the important stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 11:53 AM EDT
If any.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Chicago 7?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 12:08 PM EDT
Is SCO saying IBM, Novell, Intel, Oracle, HP, Dell, and Red Hat are somehow
responsible for the riots at the 1967 Democratic National Convention?

[ Reply to This | # ]

INFORMIX?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 01:17 PM EDT
It should be noted that IBM bought Informix in 2001 prior to the filing of the
lawsuit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cygnus
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 01:20 PM EDT
Isn't Cygnus part of Red Hat?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IDENTIFIED BY MR. MCBRIDE AT DEPOSITION
Authored by: blang on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 01:28 PM EDT
I think that last part of the headline should be enough for the judge to draw a
conclusion.

Basically, the role of McBride so far has been to act as clown. First, on the
media circus. Stating such things as "We own C++, we sell a lot of
those". Hyping SCO's claims, getting a first page picture on a large
magazine wrapped in UNIX history tree printout. Then as author of an open
letter to congress.

Later on, after SCO's public press statements start contradicting SCO's court
statements, SCO counsel wisely tells the pre-teen goofball to zip it. Which he
for the most part did, except that he was googling and yapping from the front
bench, over the judge during a hearing, and was told
to zip it yet again.

So, yes, I think the judge remember Mr McBride very well, and knows exactly what
to do with his deposition. And I hope that such an indirect reference to an
indecent act falls within the norm of decensy at this site.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Damage Done
Authored by: the_flatlander on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 01:59 PM EDT
But it damaged a lot of decent folks. For absolutely nothing. Including me. That is the part that isn't so funny.
Scant comfort, I suppose, when one has to live through it, but scars from wounds received in the service of truth and honor are not disfigurements, but decorations.

Shakespeare wrote:

He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.

[...]

And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Henry V Act 4, scene III

The Flatlander

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ you just don't get it
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 02:46 PM EDT
IBM interfered in SCO's relationships with Red Hat, and others by not rolling
over. You see if IBM had rolled over and paid out. Then everyone would have
said gee there must be something to it.....

So it obvious IBM completely destroyed SCO's bussiness model, and should pay
<DR. Evil> 1 Billion </DR.Evil> dollars;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM interfered with the Chicago 7
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 03:11 PM EDT
All six of them!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Vagueness in some parts of the list
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 03:12 PM EDT
Hello,

The reference to a "Certain NY taxi company" is sort of vague (but at
least limited in scope), but the really winner of vague and obscure is:
"Entity Above a Certain OpenSource Business Conference Company Sponsoring
John Terpstra's OpenSource Conference."

A "Entity" above a conference company? What does that mean? In SCO's
world perhaps the entity is some creature from mythology in ours, because this
sure doesn't resemble anything in my reality.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Exhibit 51, in which SCO guesses wrong as to why no one likes them - IBM's Greatest Hits
Authored by: kurtwall on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 04:08 PM EDT
If you look at the list, it is basically everyone bigger than a mom-and-pop or other small-medium-business with whom Caldera/SCO Caldera ever had a relationship. Informix? Pardon me, but IBM bought Informix a long time ago. Please. As it is, the operative verb here is the past tense, had. No one sensible does business with a company as lawsuit-happy as SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO "Relationships" - What Happened with Budgens, PCMS, and IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 04:08 PM EDT
McBride identified the following as "customers which IBM interfered with". If we have a look at them we see:

  • A Certain NY Taxi Cab Company - It is difficult to comment on someone when you don't know their name. Apparently, McBride didn't know who they were either. It doesn't sound like they could have been a very solid sales prospect if McBride couldn't remember who they were.
  • IBM Japan - It's not difficult to imagine why they may have lost IBM as a customer. If McBride bothered to list them, he must have had trouble coming up with any names at all.
  • Budgens (maybe) - This one is a UK food retailer who used PCMS POS (point of sale) software in their store (see below). Budgens was also a Sequent customer (Sequent was purchased by IBM).
  • PCMS - This is a company which sold POS software. One of their major customers was Budgens, so these two issues are possibly linked, and are perhaps even the same situation as far as SCO is concerned. PCMS sold Java based POS software which ran on Linux. They were an SCO Unix and SCO Linux customer.

    • So, of the companies listed as customers, we can discard IBM as being SCO's fault, and "nameless cab company" as having no information.

    The remaining case seems to be Budgens / PCMS. I am listing these together because Budgens used PCMS POS systems, so the loss of Budgens was likely because PCMS switched to Linux. So why did PCMS switch to Linux? Let's look at the SCO Investor Relations page for "Jan. 13, 2003":

    SCO and Wincor Nixdorf have already begun collaborating on retail solutions, providing more than 2000 Linux based devices for Budgens, a supermarket chain based in the United Kingdom. This implementation, provided through PCMS (a SCO solution provider), will utilize PCMS’s Vision BeanStore store system to provide Budgens’ point of sale systems.
    (No clicky link, as I don't want to give them the hits) http://www.sco.com/company/success/story.html?ID=20
    So SCO was involved in PCMS (and through them Budgens) using Linux. Their use of Linux should have come as no surprise to SCO.

    PCMS's view of the relationship was:

    The retailer opted to avoid using a Microsoft platform because of fears over costly licensing terms and being locked into a undesirable up-grade cycle. Budgens is replacing its six-year-old Epos system, which runs on a Unix platform, with the Beanstore Epos system, from retail software provider PCMS, and a Linux platform from SCO. ...
    "The retailer chose SCO's Linux platform over the Microsoft alternative primarily because of cost," Barr said. "We looked at the total cost of ownership over five years and we could not risk going with Microsoft," he said. "With Microsoft's licensing regime you are dictated on upgrades by other forces. We wanted to remain in control."
    PCMS Announcement 2003
    I especially like the "TCO" comment. I guess Microsoft is right, customers need to look at the TCO over the full life of the system.
    It is especially worth noting that it appears the customer was doing this as part of a POS system upgrade and was looking at switching to either Linux or MS Windows. This doesn't appear to be a spur of the moment decision.

    In 2004 though, PCMS was demonstrating their "Vision BeanStore" software at Linuxworld running on IBM SurePOS 700 hardware with Suse Linux.

    "We are delighted to be working with IBM on a Java point-of-sale application running on IBM solution set, utilizing the IBM Retail Environment for SUSE Linux at LinuxWorld," commented Richard Smith, managing director of PCMS Group in the United Kingdom. "We have always valued our partnership with IBM in Europe and North America, and we look forward to the Linux/IBM solution being a strong strategy for us world-wide," he noted.

    PR News Wire 2004
    It looks as if SCO was expecting to do a lot of business through PCMS (including to Budgens) in 2003, but in 2004 we see PCMS promoting their relationship with IBM.

    "PCMS has large customers running BeanStore point-of-sale on IBM’s solution set and Linux, therefore it makes perfect sense for us to offer that kind of on-demand technology to small and medium size retailers,” said Chris Belk, President and CEO of PCMS, Inc. “PCMS and IBM are already working closely together, however the ISV Advantage Program elevates the relationship to the next level while strengthening our company’s market position.”
    PCMS Announcement 2004
    PCMS already had large customers using IBM POS hardware. So when IBM offered a platform for medium and smaller customers as well, PCMS decided it looked like good business. However, small retailers was SCO territory, so this put IBM and SCO in direct competition for the same customers. SCO then lost one of their flagship customers to IBM.

    If we go through the "relationships which IBM interfered with" list, we see that most of them seem to be former software industry partners who SCO alienated. The one relationship which really seems to stand out though is Budgens / PCMS. Medium size retail is SCO's core market. When they lose one of the key POS system software suppliers to IBM and Novell/Suse, that has to hurt. When did they lose them? It seems to have happened some time between 2003 and 2004. Isn't that about when SCO starting running around threatening to sue Linux users? It must have been quite embarassing for McBride to explain that one to the board of directors.

    So I guess the moral of the story is, a Linux supplier can't afford to alienate their customers and partners. They're not locked in so it's too easy for them to switch to someone else. Oh, and don't forget your Microsoft Windows TCO calculations.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    There is nothing new under the sun ...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 07:33 PM EDT
    PJ made the comment that "... my view of FUD is that it can't stand the light of day, ..."

    In Australia we have a very clever and well known lawyer named Tony Morris. In an article he wrote about the problems in the government health system in Queensland, he made the observation that there are certain types of people in the system:

    ... inhabiting the crepuscular recesses and crevices of the public hospital system, [that] are susceptible only when exposed to direct light.

    and

    These parasitic organisms also thrive in an environment of Cimmerian gloom, and have evolved an immunity to even the most powerful remedies.

    This just sounded sooooooo much like what Groklaw is doing that I thought it worth posting. As PJ has said all along, shining the collective light of many eyes (the remedy) will cause all the FUD to dissolve so that the real issue(s) can be addressed. At least PJ might enjoy reading Tony Morris. I think crepuscular is such a nice word:-)

    Enjoy
    Peter Bisset

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mr James' language
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 08:14 PM EDT
    I'm not a native english speaker, but Mr James' language at times striked me as
    (to put it mildly) slightly colloquial, for a serious auditorium like this,
    before the court.

    Is it only my impression ?

    Does this happen frequently in court?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What about IBM itself
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 02 2007 @ 10:59 PM EDT
    My question - they are so thorough, basically picking all the major computer
    players, I wonder why they didn't say IBM interfered with SCO's relationship
    with IBM? It would tick the final box. ;-)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Exhibit 51, in which SCO guesses wrong as to why no one likes them - IBM's Greatest Hits
    Authored by: urzumph on Tuesday, April 03 2007 @ 04:13 AM EDT
    A lot of this doesn't even make sense.

    OSDL aren't analysts, and OSDL/ the FSF certainly aren't standards bodies in the
    usual sense of the word.

    Also, I'm guessing Cybase should be Sybase, since I have never heard of Cybase
    and neither has wikipedia.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Eyewitness account as to why no one likes SCOg
    Authored by: N_au on Tuesday, April 03 2007 @ 04:13 AM EDT
    I like the Memories newspics article. It was from someone who was there at Oracle and the Chicago 7 and what they actually thought about what SCOg were doing to themselves. It had nothing at all to do with IBM. I particularly liked the bit about avoiding all discussions with them, not even answering the voice messages so that SCOg could not say that they were having discussions with that particular company. If they were that blind to what they were doing to their reputation they deserve what is coming to them.

    Any wonder they got rid of the name CALDERA.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Padding Out the List
    Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, April 03 2007 @ 05:23 AM EDT
    Oracle appears thrice.

    Dell, Intel, Compaq, HP and OSDL each appear twice.

    Surely Darl got splinters under his fingernails.

    ---
    Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity – and I'm not
    sure about the former. -- Einstein

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I am puzzled
    Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, April 03 2007 @ 05:58 AM EDT
    Since those nice people at TSG have told us all that PJ is an invention of IBM's
    (And I'm sure they wouldn't lie!!!) and since Groklaw is an invention of PJ's,
    making Groklaw part of IBM.
    How can IBM have interfered improperly with TSG's relationship with IBM!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Exhibit 51, in which SCO guesses wrong as to why no one likes them - IBM's Greatest Hits
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 03 2007 @ 07:50 AM EDT
    Doesn't this seem to have all those "friends" of SCO that split a few
    months
    back? We have the PIPE fairy on here... (BayStar) and the FUDster... (Rob
    Enderle)... and Canopy...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Exhibit 51, in which SCO guesses wrong as to why no one likes them - IBM's Greatest Hits
    Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, April 03 2007 @ 09:02 AM EDT
    From side bar "Memories..."

    'Honestly, the only things I really remember saying about SCO in those days came
    from a very short list:

    "What a bunch of idiots."
    "What a bunch of morons."
    "What are they thinking?"
    "WTF!?"'

    I guess that proves SCO's claims that IBM interferred with the relationship
    between Oracle and SCO! ;-)



    ---
    Junk is stuff you throw away. Stuff is junk you keep.

    [ Reply to This | # ]
    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )     		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
    Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
    News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
    Powered By GeekLog
    Created this page in 0.05 seconds