On Tuesday 17 June 2003 12:42 pm, Curtis Rey wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Monday 16 June 2003 23:32, Fred A. Miller wrote:
Ok....it looks like most, if not all of the "dirty code" that SCO has identified is in: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP. I'd like to know if SuSE has taken at look at all this and what do they have to say about it. IBM, so far, has simply make a denial but nothing else. This is not looking good people.
SCO Net Assets: $37.4m (Source: Multex) Total Employees: 340 (Source: Multex & Yahoo! Finance) Legal Department Employees: Unknown (See below*)
IBM Net Assets: $96,484m (Source: Multex) Total Employees: 315,889 (Source: Multex) Legal Department Employees: 308 (Source: Law.com)
Sources: IBM Balance Sheet - http://yahoo.multexinvestor.com/IS.aspx?ticker=IBM &target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fstatements%2fb alancesheet%2fannual SCO Balance Sheet - http://yahoo.multexinvestor.com/IS.aspx?ticker=SCO X&target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fstatements%2f balancesheet%2fannual IBM Legal Department as of 2002 - http://www.law.com/special/professionals/nlj/2002/ nlj_client_list_who_defends_corporate_america.shtm l IBM Legal Department in 2000 and 1999 - http://www.corporatelegaltimes.com/editorial/surve ys/aug01.cfm
*SCO's legal department is not anywhere in the top 200, naturally, and no mention of size or otherwise is made in any SEC filings, etc. However, unlike IBM, SCO has no "Head Counsel," nor is any real mention made of an in-house legal department. From this, I construe that SCO either outsources its legal needs to a third-party firm, or does not employ enough lawyers to require a full "department." The acquisition of David Boies perhaps corroborates the first.
Dear Curtis, Excellent thinking again Curtis. I stand in awe of your energy. A few thoughts: IBM's staff attorneys IMHO count for nothing; at best they co-ordinate the retained outside counsel firms. They have some of the largest and most respected firms in the world. IBM's scope of action is astounding. When AT&T brashly entered the world of mainframe commercial computing in the 1970's IBM took it as a potentially mortal business threat. IBM reasoned that since 99.9% of AT&T's profits were produced under a government legalized and protected monopoly on telecommunications, AT&T was stepping 'out of bounds'. These gov't protected revenues (guaranteed profits) were in essence going to be used to finance AT&T's entry into IBM's competitive arena. IBM made a most remarkable attacks on the AT&T gov't granted monopoly. The then IBM Corp VP and chief Counsel Nicholas Katzenbach (Atty General to Jack Kennedy) began to lobby congress and the courts in a way never seen in history. In the end the US Appellate Courts upheld US Circuit Court Judge Green's historic orders to break up and 'un-protect' the worlds largest corporate conglomerate "The Bell System". The whole story has yet to be written. (Yes IBM was HUGHLY in the Democratic Party Camp) David Bois whose firm SCO has hired massacred M$, only the Bush Justice Dept appointees gave it all back to M$. My assumption is that the Bush folks thought they were providing the 'greater good' to the American people by protecting those who had invested their fortunes in M$; but the AT&T lesson is sharp and bright as diamonds == The economic prosperity that was the child of the unprecedented engineering and marketing tidal-wave of innovation and invention that flooded into the newly opened 'wild frontier' of the previously forbidden AT&T "Private Domain" was the father to the ERA of the PC and all that followed. Just try to imaging the world of telecommunications, internet, email, web commerce, and lots more in a world where AT&T still had it's gov't licensed monopoly! But David Bois once represented IBM; I'm sure his staff is wrestling with how to address the possible conflict of interest of now litigating against IBM. Never forget that stock traders can make money on stocks that go down as well as up. It is all in the fluctuations and when they happen. If the trader has some control of what the press is saying to the 'market at large' then that trader has hugh potential for profit; unles they catch him. Remember when a group of media types allied themselves with a bunch of stock traders and hired a PHD Doctor of (hrm hmm garbled garbage) and took him around the country and called press conferences regarding the "Safety of Nutrasweet brand of Aspartame? The local press and media reporters would show up and dutifully report on the 'Doctors' findings about Nutrasweet and birth defects, yada yada yada. Who can resist stories like that? Well it turns out that these wonderful folks were making fortunes on short term trading on Searle (maker of Nutrasweet) stock. They got caught; but since several of them were full time NEWS Dept employees of major TV networks very little news was written about the fraud. But most everyone seems to remember that there is something dangerour about Nutrasweet. btw nothing has ever been found to be harmful about aspartame. JMHO ................... PeterB p.s. KMail spell checking mysteriously quit yesterday, so please make allowances -- -- Proud to use SuSE Linux, since 5.2 Loving using SuSE Linux 8.2 May 2003, The City of Munich, Germany ordered 14,000 Workstation Lic for SuSE 8.2, despite M$ cutting their bid to $0.10 on the Dollar This will be remembered MyBlog http://vancampen.org/blog/ "Non Sanz Capsicum" "Not Without Cayenne" --