7 ms·

i had no idea who SCO was, so i looked it up. > What really surprises me is that so many people are immediately willing to forget that this is the company that

i had no idea who SCO was, so i looked it up. > What really surprises me is that so many people are immediately willing to forget that this is the company that bankrolled SCO in their lawsuit. > But just a few short years later... as far as i can tell, that happened 14 years ago. that's a little longer than a few years.

mikekchar 10y ago
The lawsuit only wrapped up last year :-P
- thr0waway1239 10y ago
  Damn! I was just imagining a scenario where the case took a turn for the worse and came after the very customers of the Azure Intellectual Property advantage :-)
foxylad 10y ago
Ah, GROKLAW. I used to camp on that website, waiting for IBM's white knights to slay the evil Darl McBride, and PJ to put on her red dress. PJ was Pamela Jones the blogger, who gave an incredibly informed commentary of the cases. I wonder where she is now - I'd love to send her a bottle of Otago Pinot Noir.
michaelmrose 10y ago
If you told me you did something quite bad 14 years ago absent other compelling evidence I'd assume that you were still a bad person.
- chadgeidel 10y ago
  I'm not suggesting we should forget about SCO and antitrust violations of previous decades, but I would posit that this constitutes "compelling evidence" that MS has changed: https://github.com/microsoft/ https://github.com/microsoft/
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    Microsoft is still doing bad things like suing companies making android devices. Microsoft wants tech professionals to pay attention to one and not the other. Both exist and if someone does something good it does not make up for the bad. Only stopping the bad stops Microsoft from being bad.
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    I'm still waiting for the compelling evidence.
MagnumOpus 10y ago
> as far as i can tell, that happened 14 years ago. that's a little longer than a few years It started 14 years ago. With a lot of MS money to prop up zombie SCO, some lawsuits are still ongoing. [1]http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20031016162215566 http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2003101616...

mikekchar 10y ago

The lawsuit only wrapped up last year :-P

thr0waway1239 10y ago
Damn! I was just imagining a scenario where the case took a turn for the worse and came after the very customers of the Azure Intellectual Property advantage :-)

foxylad 10y ago

Ah, GROKLAW. I used to camp on that website, waiting for IBM's white knights to slay the evil Darl McBride, and PJ to put on her red dress. PJ was Pamela Jones the blogger, who gave an incredibly informed commentary of the cases. I wonder where she is now - I'd love to send her a bottle of Otago Pinot Noir.

michaelmrose 10y ago

If you told me you did something quite bad 14 years ago absent other compelling evidence I'd assume that you were still a bad person.

chadgeidel 10y ago
I'm not suggesting we should forget about SCO and antitrust violations of previous decades, but I would posit that this constitutes "compelling evidence" that MS has changed: https://github.com/microsoft/ https://github.com/microsoft/
- sqeaky 10y ago
  Microsoft is still doing bad things like suing companies making android devices. Microsoft wants tech professionals to pay attention to one and not the other. Both exist and if someone does something good it does not make up for the bad. Only stopping the bad stops Microsoft from being bad.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  I'm still waiting for the compelling evidence.

MagnumOpus 10y ago

> as far as i can tell, that happened 14 years ago. that's a little longer than a few years It started 14 years ago. With a lot of MS money to prop up zombie SCO, some lawsuits are still ongoing. [1]http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20031016162215566 http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2003101616...