OK, maybe she isn't. I agree, the whole thing looks suspicious. And I agree there's a tremendous amount of bias there and there has been sloppy reporting in support of that bias (I know that from personal experience).
But so what?
Does that change any real facts here? If PJ is a fictional creation of IBM, does that mean that SCO has real evidence of their supposed ip having been put in Linux source? Does it change the fact that SCO screwed their own goose regularly over the past decade and more, culminating in the utter stupidity they are embroiled in now?
Yes, I understand that IBM shafted SCO badly with the Monterey deal. Well, guess what: that was another dumb move by SCO. Mice shouldn't make deals with big cats. If by some miracle a court supports the mouse's position here, the particular mouse in question is going to die anyway, if not by the claws of the IBM tiger then certainly with the help of the other big Microsoft one.
So, it would not surprise me a bit if PJ and Groklaw turned out to be a well-funded arm of IBM's legal department. If so, it doesn't change anything. Would it be a "dirty trick" by IBM? I guess, but it's such a yawner compared to most corporate malfeasance that not even I care. And it changes absolutely nothing.
Got something to add? Send me email.
More Articles by Tony Lawrence © 2012-07-17 Tony Lawrence
Whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last you are going to see of him till he emerges on the other side of his Atlantic with his verb in his mouth. (Mark Twain)