On May 14, 2005, at 2:58 PM, Post, Mark K wrote:
And now Kircaali _claims_ to "get it." [ ...]
Can't say I believe him much, despite what Tony Mobily says about his change of heart
I myself wouldn't trust him, at this point, as far as I could spit him. Not that I have the hatred of (some of) the far right for "flip- flopping," as I believe that it's perfectly reasonable to realize you made a mistake and change your mind when new evidence arises, but I too have the feeling that he's trying to tell each participant what he or she wants to hear, without any change in his underlying beliefs.
To answer Brandon Darbro's question: I guess Linus could refuse to grant right to use the trademark, but I think it exceedingly unlikely.
I have a question for the multitudes: what if PJ *is* an IBM shill, a composite of several of their legal representatives fighting the case in the court of public opinion, rather than in the courtroom? That-- while sleazy--would be no worse than what SCO's done all along in the case, and, unlike SCO, Groklaw consistently presents actual documents entered into the public record in support of IBM's case. In which case it would seem to me to come down to sleaze-with-evidence versus sleaze-without-evidence. Maureen O' Gara would seem to have accomplished at least one of her objectives by succeeding in changing the focus to "Who's PJ?" rather than "Are PJ's Arguments Any Good?"
Adam
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
