discuss: Re: SCO's response to HP
Subject:
Re: OT: SCO's response to HP
From:
Salvador Peralta ####@####.####
Date:
25 Sep 2003 15:50:48 -0000
Message-Id: <3F730ED7.4080009@willamette.edu>
Mark Komarinski wrote:
>
>(getting way OT here)
>
>The difference was that the product that Caldera bought (DR-DOS) was
>actually harmed by anti-competitive behavior. Novell (or DR) did retain
>the right to sue Microsoft as a result of the behavior and passed that
>right on to Caldera. In this case, the proof was pretty easy to see.
>
>http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~kkoster/microsoft/caldera.html
>http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=8045
>
I am well aware of Microsoft's anti-competitive practises. However, it
seems clear that Caldera was not harmed by Microsoft's actions. They
bought DR-Dos simply to give them the right to sue Microsoft, and as
such, were simply using the courts as a lottery system in the same
manner that they are doing today.
Their business model seems to be:
Lose money hand over fist.
When money dries up, sue deep pockets competitor and hope they settle.
Lose money hand over fist.
When money dries up, sue deep pockets competitor and hope they settle.
The next big question is whether anyone has standing to sue Caldera for
GPL violations in its LKP.
....
--
Salvador Peralta
Systems Administrator
Mark O. Hatfield Library
http://www.willamette.edu/~speralta
