Subject: Re: OFF-TOPIC - The SCO suit
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:37:31 -0800
Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:37:31 -0800
on Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 10:28:00AM -0500, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. (rdixon@cyberspaces.org)
wrote:

> I agree that open source must win this thing, but thinking like a
> lawyer matters too...no need to chase false hopes or expend resources
> hopelessly.

I'm not saying that legal rigor doesn't matter, and the case to date
suggests the legal foundations for Caldera/SCO are at best weak.

Restricting oneself to working within the box of "The Law" is overly
limiting.  Caldera/SCO are operating on multiple fronts:  PR, financing,
bluster, and apparently sufficient leverage to cause Sun and HP to
embarass themselves repeatedly.

> Those who think SCO's counsel can be "forced" to "testify as a
> witness" merely because he is being paid quite well for his firm's
> services (the arrangement, itself, does not strike me as unusual) are
> chasing false hopes.

Should it turn out that $20 - $30m in raised capital spent on legal
services is rendered worthless to Caldera/SCO, my pet crocodile will be
crying publicly.  The shame at such a waste....   It's rather less a
matter of compelling privileged disclosure.

The record of IBM's patent enforcement practices suggests the company is
well versed in the legal equivalent of war of attrition.  That is the
substance of my suggestion.


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    "You don't have to pretend to be interested in me you know," said
    Marvin at last, "I know perfectly well I'm only a menial robot."
    -- HHGTG


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]