why is a real exec working for scox?

Message ID: 347116
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2006-02-17 15:19:00
Subject: why is a real exec working for scox?

darl and yarro are not real execs in my opinion. They are part of a bunch of byu frat boys who work together on various scams.

Negris, on the other hand, seems like a real exec. Negris has been an exec for Oracle and IBM.

Why does somebody like that want to work for scox? Maybe I've over-rated the guy?

Message ID: 353250
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2006-03-12 10:00:00
Subject: explain biff's position?

I never get a direct answer out of biff, so I won't try.

I have never agreed with biff, but I used to understand what he was arguing. At least to the extent that I understood his basic premises. It seems there was a time when biff didn't flip-flop that often.

Biff used to argue that novell owned the Unix copyrights, and that novell transferred those copyrights to scox.

Then, on the novl board, biff argued that novl owned the copyrights, and novl still owns the copyrights. When I pointed out, to biff, that this contradicted his previous position about scox owning the copyrights. Biff claimed that scox both owned the copyrights, and did not own the copyrights.

Now biff is flip-flopping again. Now biff is arguing that novl never owned the copyrights. Or is it that novl both owned them, and didn't own them?

It's 07:53 here in denver. As I write this, I'm not sure what biff's present position is. But, within the last month, biff has held all three of the above positions.

Biff argues in manner so similar to scox. He sees no problem with arguing mutually exclusive positions. No problem with contradictions. And, for the most part, his entire arguement is pointless anyway. It doesn't matter what novl owned or didn't own, what matters is: what rights over IBM does scox have?

Out of curiousity, why all the recent flip-flopping? Has something happend that biff has to change his position to support the scox scam?

essage ID: 380377
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2006-06-14 09:10:00
Subject: SCOX OWNS NOTHING, KILLS ITSELF

Scox is, at best, about 1% of msft's ongoing FUD campaign against Linux. At least, scox was that, at one point. Now scox may not even be that much.

IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Chrysler, and AutoZone; we're not looking for a fight from scox. In each case, scox either initiated a bogus lawsuits, or brought on the lawsuits by blatant Lanham Act Violations.

Nobdoy "screwed" scox. Msft just paid scox to file lawsuits in order to create a perceived legal cloud over Linux. The effectiveness of msft's little scam (to kill the competition via massive abuse of the US legal system) is debatable.

Don't take my word for it, it's all been well documented.

Message ID: 392866
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2006-07-24 18:26:09
Subject: is there really cause for gloating?

I'm glad the brook wells finally woke-up and gave IBM a very well deserved partial victory. And I'm glad to see scox's share price declining.

But, I don't get all the "darl is getting reamed" and "scox is being slammed" bluster.

To me, the sad bottom line looks like this:

1) wells does not give scox a slam-dunk victory everytime, but she does as much as she can. During the last hearing, I don't think she could have given scox a 100% victory without seriously risking an appeal from ibm.

2) Scox share price dropped to $0.56 the day darl took over - and that was on half as many shares as scox now has. Scox's market cap is still nearly 10X what is was pre-scam.

3) Darl is not hurting, neither is Yarro, and it's likely that no harm, of any kind, will come to either. This scam has been a windfall for BSF. It won't hurt BSF's business. BSF is doing what they were paid to do.

4) The scam's effect on msft is unclear. Probably not all msft hoped for. But, I wouldn't be surprised if some major corps decided something like: "let's put off contributing to linux until we see how this lawsuit pans out. We don't need the headache of some bogus msft sponsered lawsuit." I supose it's possible there is some backlash against msft. It's also possible that ibm will sue msft. We really don't know.

Bottom line: in many ways msft and scox have already won, and continues to win. The scam may not be all that msft and scox hoped for, but it looks to me like the scam is doing them more good than harm.

BTW: I don't think the scammers are idiots or crazy. Msft/scox statements, either direct or through their press shills, may seem crazy or idiotic; scox's court filing may seem crazy or iditotic; but they are being crazy like foxes. They say that stuff because it works, especially in court. Every insane filing throws another wrench in system, because the court has to take every statement serioulsy.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "walterbyrd" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.