Most of the reactions to SCO putting up their new legal documents page have been to note that SCO used Groklaw and Tuxrocks to build their document collection. It's an irresistable story. It's just so funny. But here's another reaction on a deeper level. Line56.com, "The E-Business Executive Daily", has an astute article noting the new page, but it says it is simply too late for SCO's page to matter, and not only because what SCO is offering is already available on Groklaw and other sites:
The use of the word factual is likely a dig at the number of anti-SCO websites (the foremost of which is Groklaw) that have proliferated in the wake of company's open attacks on not just companies but the very open source concept, which has plenty of corporate and individual defenders. . . .
However, SCO says that the site will contain other "valuable information" as well, which can be read as an intention to get the SCO side of the story out on a grassroots basis. But the damage has been done, not just via SCO's own attitude, but because of blogs like Groklaw.
Indeed, one of the lessons that businesses can learn from the various controversies surrounding SCO is that blogs are very powerful at concentrating and harnessing the power of many scattered individuals (indeed, that's the premise behind open source as well). SCO has fought the idea tooth and nail, but other businesses will embrace it -- e.g., by building blog-based customer communities of their own.
Now, I'm not an analyst, but I would guess community-building only works for companies that don't sue their own customers.
In another report, Blake Stowell is once again stating that the company will be filing its 10K and 10Q real soon, any day now:
"We feel like we are on track to resolving all of the NASDAQ issues right now," Stowell said. "We hope to be able to turn in our form 10-K to the SEC very soon. As soon as we do that we believe that will satisfy the Nasdaq's requirement."
We'll see. I've heard "soon" for a while now. I'm starting to feel like a longtime girlfriend who asks when her guy plans on popping the question.
Stowell says something else that reverberated in my mind:
Stowell said the delayed launched stemmed from the volume of documents that were involved in its various cases and calling the site a "very time-intensive project."
"Obviously we want to be respectful of the court," he added. "We are very careful to make sure we are not posting anything on the site that wouldn't be in accordance with what the court would have us put up there."
Time-consuming! He doesn't know the half of it. Imagine if they had scanned the documents themselves, instead of just downloading ours. But note the last part. You don't suppose they plan on finding a way to put up that email they've been yearning to show us, do you? Whatever he means, I feel foreshadowing in that remark. I also think it's my role to point out that while they attribute the delay to the magnitude of the task, back when they first told us they wouldn't be doing the site, it was reported that it was because of legal concerns.
Ah! The shifting sands of SCO. I believe IBM could write a book on that subject.