Re: SCO after BSD settlement

[Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

: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.

    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.

    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).  

    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.

    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.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>