SEO

This just occurred to me while SCO's most recent attacks upon the GPL
as a tool for destroying proprietory software: As we all know by now,
Microsoft are the puppeteer, jerking Darl and his paid mouths around
the stage to spout their gibberish. Yet, Microsoft themselves have
been instrumental in destroying countless (non Microsoft) proprietory
software companies when it suits them.

So, in effect, the chief culprit is the one complaining about the GPL
managing to destroy its cometition legally, when MS have to resort to
illegal means to do so ;-)

It was also interesting reading the SEC filings showing SCO's lawyers
refused to take the case on a no-win no-fee basis (due to the
certainty that they will lose), but instead took a 20% stake in the
company so they can join in the stock dumping frenzy too!

I wonder if it's possible to find out how much stock our dear Bela
Lubkin has managed to dump whilst reassuring people here that
everything is going great over in Utah? ;-)

--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

> I wonder if it's possible to find out how much stock our dear Bela
> Lubkin has managed to dump whilst reassuring people here that
> everything is going great over in Utah? ;-)

I know you are upset with SCO, but don't go running off the people who are
helping other with their problems. Bela is a very knowledgeable resource
for lots of people. He has helped me in the past. Say what you will about
SCO but leave the people alone who are just trying to help people in need of
assistance.

Justin

FyRE wrote:

> I wonder if it's possible to find out how much stock our dear Bela
> Lubkin has managed to dump whilst reassuring people here that
> everything is going great over in Utah? ;-)

This will be the first time in this millennium that I have even
indirectly mentioned that state on USENET. In fact, the only previous
article I have ever posted that contained that word was a 1990 article,
"comp.sys.amiga.hardware PASSES 282:38", in which one of the voters'
accounts was on machine "cs.utah.edu".

I am not a 10% stock holder nor an important company officer, so, no.

>Bela<

FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote in message news:<0rklqvsuhhijhl09nkskoj0qltmm08qjvn@4ax.com>. ..
> This just occurred to me while SCO's most recent attacks upon the GPL
> as a tool for destroying proprietory software: As we all know by now,
> Microsoft are the puppeteer, jerking Darl and his paid mouths around
> the stage to spout their gibberish. Yet, Microsoft themselves have
> been instrumental in destroying countless (non Microsoft) proprietory
> software companies when it suits them.
>
> So, in effect, the chief culprit is the one complaining about the GPL
> managing to destroy its cometition legally, when MS have to resort to
> illegal means to do so ;-)
>
> It was also interesting reading the SEC filings showing SCO's lawyers
> refused to take the case on a no-win no-fee basis (due to the
> certainty that they will lose), but instead took a 20% stake in the
> company so they can join in the stock dumping frenzy too!
>
> I wonder if it's possible to find out how much stock our dear Bela
> Lubkin has managed to dump whilst reassuring people here that
> everything is going great over in Utah? ;-)



If our dear Bela Lubkin became a wealthy man from this mess, I for one,
would be thrilled.

Dan Martin

On 7 Nov 2003 05:42:59 -0800, Dan Martin <dcmartin@affinitycorp.com> wrote:
>FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote in message news:<0rklqvsuhhijhl09nkskoj0qltmm08qjvn@4ax.com>. ..
>> This just occurred to me while SCO's most recent attacks upon the GPL
>> as a tool for destroying proprietory software: As we all know by now,
>> Microsoft are the puppeteer, jerking Darl and his paid mouths around
>> the stage to spout their gibberish. Yet, Microsoft themselves have
>> been instrumental in destroying countless (non Microsoft) proprietory
>> software companies when it suits them.
>>
>> So, in effect, the chief culprit is the one complaining about the GPL
>> managing to destroy its cometition legally, when MS have to resort to
>> illegal means to do so ;-)
>>
>> It was also interesting reading the SEC filings showing SCO's lawyers
>> refused to take the case on a no-win no-fee basis (due to the
>> certainty that they will lose), but instead took a 20% stake in the
>> company so they can join in the stock dumping frenzy too!
>>
>> I wonder if it's possible to find out how much stock our dear Bela
>> Lubkin has managed to dump whilst reassuring people here that
>> everything is going great over in Utah? ;-)
>
>
>
>If our dear Bela Lubkin became a wealthy man from this mess, I for one,
>would be thrilled.

Unfortunately, I suspect a more likely scenario is that he will be
looking for a new job in a few months time.

FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>This just occurred to me while SCO's most recent attacks upon the GPL
>as a tool for destroying proprietory software: As we all know by now,
>Microsoft are the puppeteer, jerking Darl and his paid mouths around

No, we don't all know that. Microsoft certainly has to be in favor
of it, of course, but we have no certainty that they were or are the
original instrument.

>the stage to spout their gibberish. Yet, Microsoft themselves have
>been instrumental in destroying countless (non Microsoft) proprietory
>software companies when it suits them.

>So, in effect, the chief culprit is the one complaining about the GPL
>managing to destroy its cometition legally, when MS have to resort to
>illegal means to do so ;-)

>It was also interesting reading the SEC filings showing SCO's lawyers
>refused to take the case on a no-win no-fee basis (due to the
>certainty that they will lose), but instead took a 20% stake in the
>company so they can join in the stock dumping frenzy too!

So? They aren't stupid. Your point?

>I wonder if it's possible to find out how much stock our dear Bela
>Lubkin has managed to dump whilst reassuring people here that
>everything is going great over in Utah? ;-)

You really are an idiot.

Sometimes people get called names on Usenet out of frustration or
anger, but in this case, it's just a simple assessment of
your comments.


--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:01:48 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
<apl@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:

>FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>>It was also interesting reading the SEC filings showing SCO's lawyers
>>refused to take the case on a no-win no-fee basis (due to the
>>certainty that they will lose), but instead took a 20% stake in the
>>company so they can join in the stock dumping frenzy too!
>
>So? They aren't stupid. Your point?

Some commentators had suggested that SCO *must* have a case, since the
lawyers were on contingency and would not have taken the case without a
likelyhood of success.

Now, it seems that the lawyers will get paid no matter what (it's been
suggested that they will get 20% of the recent Baystar/RBC investments),
so the suggestion that SCO *must* have a case based on the lawyer's
contingency now fails.

Joe Dunning <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:01:48 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
><apl@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:

>>FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>>>It was also interesting reading the SEC filings showing SCO's lawyers
>>>refused to take the case on a no-win no-fee basis (due to the
>>>certainty that they will lose), but instead took a 20% stake in the
>>>company so they can join in the stock dumping frenzy too!
>>
>>So? They aren't stupid. Your point?

>Some commentators had suggested that SCO *must* have a case, since the
>lawyers were on contingency and would not have taken the case without a
>likelyhood of success.

>Now, it seems that the lawyers will get paid no matter what (it's been
>suggested that they will get 20% of the recent Baystar/RBC investments),
>so the suggestion that SCO *must* have a case based on the lawyer's
>contingency now fails.

OK. I can't imagine how anyone could think that a lawyer could have
enough knowledge of the history of Unix etc. to have an opinion of
value. Maybe after doing a lot of research, but that costs money, so it
doesn't surprise me that they covered their butts. But beyond that,
even if they understood it and though the case was good, the possibility
of a buyout nullifying the case would have to be covered, and that's
what this would do.

The latest crapola from SCO offering a "discount" for switching to
some other OS is far more disturbing than this, I think.


--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 08:35:56 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
<apl@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:

>Joe Dunning <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>>On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:01:48 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
>><apl@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>>>FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>>>>It was also interesting reading the SEC filings showing SCO's lawyers
>>>>refused to take the case on a no-win no-fee basis (due to the
>>>>certainty that they will lose), but instead took a 20% stake in the
>>>>company so they can join in the stock dumping frenzy too!
>>>
>>>So? They aren't stupid. Your point?
>
>>Some commentators had suggested that SCO *must* have a case, since the
>>lawyers were on contingency and would not have taken the case without a
>>likelyhood of success.
>
>>Now, it seems that the lawyers will get paid no matter what (it's been
>>suggested that they will get 20% of the recent Baystar/RBC investments),
>>so the suggestion that SCO *must* have a case based on the lawyer's
>>contingency now fails.
>
>OK. I can't imagine how anyone could think that a lawyer could have
>enough knowledge of the history of Unix etc. to have an opinion of
>value.

I agree with you, but some analysts (DiDio?) had made that suggestion.

Maybe after doing a lot of research, but that costs money, so it
>doesn't surprise me that they covered their butts. But beyond that,
>even if they understood it and though the case was good, the possibility
>of a buyout nullifying the case would have to be covered, and that's
>what this would do.

My point was that the lawyers *may* already have been paid $10M,
irrespective of any outcome.

>
>The latest crapola from SCO offering a "discount" for switching to
>some other OS is far more disturbing than this, I think.

I agree.

"Tony Lawrence" <apl@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:boku9c$ndt$1@pcls4.std.com...
>
> The latest crapola from SCO offering a "discount" for switching to
> some other OS is far more disturbing than this, I think.

I missed this. Was it discussed here, or a link?