Comments on: Unfairly indicting Sun for its SCO testimony?
Some are criticizing the company for standing by while Linux took unfair hits from the Unix rights holder. But isn't this what the law and corporate citizenship required of the company?
Some are criticizing the company for standing by while Linux took unfair hits from the Unix rights holder. But isn't this what the law and corporate citizenship required of the company?
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
And I think they did and were.
Life goes on.
So there was effective "confidentiality clause". And since then, until 2007 Sun withheld this agreement from Novell until forced, by Court order, to provide it under force of subpeona.
The original subject behind all this stuff is the interview at which Mr. Phipps claims Sun "reformed" after 2002, and they manifestly didn't. Greed, built on contractual lies built by stealing Novell's property, and hiding the enabling agreement from the victim for years and years, is NOT a virtue. I think that talk about "...justified by preserving/enhancing Shareholder value" is a lot like testimony and out-of-court statements made by guilty Enron executives and their attourneys, just a variation of the "look at the Wookie!" defense.
Astroturf here. And laziness. "She" is spin, non-carnate. She is corporate.
- by RamboTribble June 27, 2008 7:35 AM PDT
- While I wouldn't denigrate Sun particularly for their actions, nor would I laud them. Troubling, however, is the nature of your defense of them. It is just a variation of the "I was only following orders," defense. Since at least 1945, that just plain hasn't washed.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(5 Comments)