Posted on 06/24/2003 6:07:26 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
I have defended IBM's "innocent until proven guilty" status, not theft, and you have thus far failed miserably to prove IBM's guilt.
and defending the point of view it's the owner's responsibility to prevent/report it?
Do you hand out copies of your "trade secret" recipe for Golden Cola, without first implementing some sort of accounting, auditing, and background check? Of course not, because the lion's share of your company's value may rely on the secrecy of your "trade secret." Do you continue to publish your "trade secret" recipe on your public FTP server, after initiating a legal suit and media assault against someone else for publishing your "trade secret"? Of course not, because you would then have a very difficult time claiming "trade secret" in court, and may find yourself vulnerable to damage claims.
Couldn't be that you're trying to "talk out of both sides of your mouth" is it?
Hardly. I'm looking for any evidence that points to SCO's ownership of the alleged "trade secret" for which they are suing IBM. Until that evidence appears, I'm attempting to quell the spewage of FUD which is emanating from the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later crowd. You appear to be investing a great deal of effort and time to spin a presumption of guilt on IBM (a US company), for a theft which may have never happened. See my very first post to you, on this very thread. If and when SCO's claim is proven valid, I will fully acknowledge and support their rights.
Your position on the issue of screen names is, indeed, the mature and responsible one.
It's obviously is straining you to tears to have such complete nincompoops exerting control over your 'community'. How much more it must hurt to think this is only the beginning.
Sorry to hear your moral compass isn't anything more than what some judge and jury in Utah might come up with.
I have positions that exceed this case, unfortunately many of you can't see beyond it to the bigger issues, but instead only view SCO as scummy lawyers.
Wait. There aren't any lawyers in a communist country, right?
You've bet the farm on this. No one agrees with you, you're forced to resorting to agreeing with yourself to create an illusion of comfort for yourself.
And in fact, it's becoming clear across the industry this suit is doing for open-source and Linux what the Napster suit did for file-sharing -- making it a household name.
The industry has changed. Attempting to kill a technology thru legal manipulations doesn't work anymore.
But I do thank you for the free advertising for Java, Linux and Apache solutions.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Psssst goldie . . . file-sharing is stronger than ever.
As is Linux . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.