On mySimon: Chinese Laundry Top Over-the-Knee Boots
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 15 of 57:
Next »
« Previous
One thing I find curious is, why?
I mean it doesn't appear that IBM needs to be "absolved" so why give the impression that they do? After all its well known that IBM just invested a big pot of dollars in Novell and this may/will look rather strange to a judge/jury. A skeptic might say a few million "investment" was very cheap when compared to 1, 3, and now 5 billion dollars. (Or whatever the latest number is.) This grant of un-needed (the way things look right now) absolution may carry a stigmatism with it that wasn't planned on and certainly isn't desired.

Be honest for a second before firing up the flame throwers. If this were Microsoft in the role of IBM, people would be screaming collusion (or worse) to the tops of their lungs. Other IT companies would be calling their Congress critters rising all sorts of it, people would be writing emails, the DOJ and certain State AG's would be all over it, and who knows what agencies would be jumping on the band wagon. (Perhaps that's the magnifying glass a legal monopoly must live under?)

But look, all I am saying is that IBM is not the knight on white horse many make them out to be. Linux currently fits into their plans, maybe it will for some time, maybe it won't, but granting them special status in this conflict because of their using Linux hardly makes sense. (Put that flame thrower down, I'm not finished!) Right now it looks a lot like they are using their financial clout to buy around the problems. At least to the average guy, or maybe even an old sceptic. As I said, I find it curious Novell and IBM made this move (at this time) and even opened the door on the possible issues it generates.

I know I sound repetative, but this is a great show to be watching. One way or another great stories will be told one day about how X won the battle with Y.
Posted by: No_Ax_to_Grind   Posted on: 02/12/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Poor SCO will be fighting on a lot of different fronts.  DonnieBoy | 02/12/04
sec filing  guido_z | 02/12/04
investors are getting ready to bail out?  nite_w0lf | 02/12/04
Amazing!  IT_User | 02/12/04
will m$ come to the rescue? or just watch sco die? (nt)  stephen732@... | 02/12/04
If you're a known padron of an arrested hit man, you'd walk to the exit...  dicktaurus@... | 02/12/04
MS involvment  MG_z | 02/13/04
Correction...they ARE the laughing stock....  nograin | 02/13/04
Will be???? (nt)  jnonneman | 02/12/04
Purportedly?  IT_User | 02/12/04
Why hasn't anyone asked ...  George Mitchell | 02/12/04
looks like sco gonna need mote money  JWatson77 | 02/12/04
why NONE of the former owners of Unixware have come to SCO's defense  MG_z | 02/13/04
(NT) Ding, Dong, The Wicked SCO is Dead !!!!!  Plain Logic | 02/12/04
One thing I find curious is, why?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/12/04
Still hanging with SCO I see.  zd-spam | 02/12/04
Still playing dumb-dumberer, NAG? Of course IBM needs no absolution...  dicktaurus@... | 02/12/04
nothing to do with IBM per se  hipparchus | 02/13/04
Not what I read....  DarbyOhara | 02/13/04
Thanks Darby, I was only asking a question but...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
I thought I answered your question  hipparchus | 02/13/04
Re: One thing I find curious is, why?  Mack DaNife | 02/13/04
You may well be right.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Re: You may well be right.  Mack DaNife | 02/13/04
But you have to admit...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Re: But you have to admit...  Mack DaNife | 02/13/04
Now there is the truth!!!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Sequent, Not IBM  MonsterPuppy | 02/13/04
Yes, but why?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Here's why...  MonsterPuppy | 02/13/04
Unfortunately that can't be done  John Le'Brecage | 02/13/04
But, IBM hasn't done anything wrong???  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Novell is not really forgiving a "sin"  dscherf | 02/13/04
Not quite true.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
No, they haven't  dscherf | 02/13/04
Hard to keep all the players straight.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Funny that you should ask...  dscherf | 02/13/04
I didn't know that. Maybe this time around?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Maybe!  dscherf | 02/13/04
silicon graphics  Louis Ross Focke | 02/13/04
IBM bought Novell (just like MS bought Novell), but ...  George Mitchell | 02/13/04
OOPS! I meant 'just like MS bought SCO'  George Mitchell | 02/13/04
You guys are getting wrapped up in headlines  IT_User | 02/13/04
You are of course right... But,  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Can't play it ant any time  IT_User | 02/13/04
But why wait until now?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/13/04
Let's follow this  IT_User | 02/13/04
Like MS and SCO  MonsterPuppy | 02/13/04
My answer  MG_z | 02/13/04
This sort of moves IBM to the Background.  nite_w0lf | 02/13/04
actually no this does not  afterbrnr | 02/13/04
RE:To " actually no this does not"  nite_w0lf | 02/13/04
Finish SCO off....  nograin | 02/13/04
Novell can require SCO...  Update victim | 02/13/04
The bottom line  chawil@... | 02/13/04
They stole the code, now they are stealing money!  Jose.Pinchero | 02/15/04
IBM should pay, they stole the code = thiefs!!!  Jose.Pinchero | 02/15/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement