It wasn't the Royal Bank of Canada itself that was ponying up money for this scam - they were doing so "on behalf of an unnamed client". Not that I actually have anything to do with RBC, it's just that saying "Royal Bank was an investor" is misleading, an effect that the unnamed investor may have been deliberately shooting for.
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
Follow the money
There has to be some financial windfall behind it, and it's important to ask the question. What are they after? There are NO valid claims in there, and everyone knows that. So what's really going on?
Unnamed client
Isn't the unnamed client Microsoft or somebody associated with Microsoft? Microsoft is the only one that could gain anything from this lawsuit. They are and have been trying to tarnish the reputation of Linux for years. Linux is a major threat to Microsoft and they know it.
Is it possible that Microsoft is the one behind all the investors that are trying to help out SCO?
You do the math!
Not quite right
The company suing world+dog over Linux is The SCO Group, not the Santa Cruz Operation, which became Tarantella, which was then was bought by Sun.
Inadequate Court Clout
For certain concerns, investment - back door and otherwise - in SCO's legal wrangles is a cheap way to keep the Linux and general open source communities squirming. It points out one of the most glaring flaws in our current legal system, that does not seem at all equipped to bring such entities as SCO to heel and tell them, once and for all, to put up or shut up.
Easy, investment companies are playing with money from other peo
Easy, investment companies are playing with money from other people, so what do they care? Due to their horse blinders, they only see the potential gain, even though the odds are not in their favor (more so than a normal investment risk).
Wrong company
Don't confuse SCO Group with Santa Cruz Operation.
SCO and just desserts
..."Could someone please explain how these investors could ignore more-or-less an entire market telling them that the case was unethical, unfounded and untenable..."
Um...hello, your talking about the vaunted free market make a buck that the US is so proud of. Why do you think that people invested in SCO? They thought that they could make back their money through licensing agreements that would be forced upon many corporations.
As far as ethics go, you of all people should realize that ethics will typically go by the wayside when hundreds of millions of dollars are potentially at stake.
If ethics were really that important, the US Patent Office would never have authorized those bloody software patents that are causing so much grief today, and left software vendors with only copywrite to protect their investments.
Post new comment