The Most Hated Company In Tech
By Tim Ransom
March 8, 2010
The Most Hated Company In Tech [ http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_05/b3868104_mz063.htm
]
"He can't say he wasn't warned. In June, 2002, when Darl McBride was getting
ready to take over as chief executive at struggling Caldera International Inc. in
Lindon, Utah -- later renamed SCO Group Inc. -- he mused that claiming ownership
of some of the underlying code in the popular Linux computer operating system could
keep the company afloat. Even though Caldera's revenues were declining, it was losing
$5 million per quarter, and its stock had slid below the $1 NASDAQ delisting price,
the reaction of outgoing CEO Ransom Love was instantaneous. "Don't do it," Love
says he told McBride. "You don't want to take on the entire Linux community."
---
Thanks again,
02:08 PM EST
The Most Hated Company In Tech
By Anonymous
March 8, 2010
It would be best during the trial to let pj decide whether
to link to things.
There are legal issues potentially, not
normally but SCO is SCO.
02:44
PM EST
Good grief
By Tim Ransom
March 8, 2010
<<It would be best
during the trial to let pj decide whether
to link to things. There are legal
issues potentially, not
normally but SCO is SCO.>>
From the article these
comments appear under:
<<Novell responded that they didn't mind, as long
as they got to use press
articles in their statement as well. Mr. Singer objected,
saying that the
article Novell wants to use refers to SCO as 'the most hated
company in tech'
and 'a cornered rat' which has rabies as well. (Those sound
familiar - I'll bet
we have links somewhere.)>>
---
Thanks again,
08:26 PM EST
Good grief
By PJ
March 8, 2010
Actually, it's correct.
If the article is allowed in
as an exhibit, fine and dandy to link to it. But
if
not, I'd prefer not to link in any current comments
or article to it.
As it turned out, they can't use it in opening, and
clearly SCO feels
it's prejudicial, so I don't want
to take a chance of giving SCO an excuse to
claim
that the trial was tainted and they get another
do over because of anyone
visiting here that shouldn't
and finding something the judge just ruled he doesn't
want them to consider. This is serious stuff, and i
take it very seriously. Groklaw
is unique, and it
has therefore the responsibility to figure this out
and
get it right, because others will follow, and I'm
absolutely determined to be
responsible.
I know they can find it themselves just by googling his
name.
But that isn't the point. SCO *tries* to find
fault with Groklaw, and I have
maintained fairness
toward them throughout, not that they ever acknowledge
it, but I have. I don't do it out of fear, but out
of my sense of fairness and
because I understand enough
of the legal system to know it really matters to
be
fair and let the case be tried based on the evidence
in the case, not the
Internet's additions.
I should write about that some time. I know if I did,
you'd understand very well.
09:24 PM EST
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20100308134200951&title=Good+grief&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=825432#c825454
Copyright 2010 http://www.groklaw.net/