Dynaverse.Net ... your friend for SFC3 and SFC2. We support all versions of these great games!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
See, I disagree with #9. I Really like Patricia Dunn, and think she got a bad rap.Stephen
It was that whole spying rap she got. See IF I had a company like that, I would have records on every one there. Hell her finding the leak was a good thing. I think she did what was best at the time for the company and the shareholders. IT was that whole Don't look at my emails thing that got her in trouble. If it's on company time, and the company dime, You bet I will look into it.Stephen
Quote from: Sirgod on November 26, 2008, 04:04:51 pmIt was that whole spying rap she got. See IF I had a company like that, I would have records on every one there. Hell her finding the leak was a good thing. I think she did what was best at the time for the company and the shareholders. IT was that whole Don't look at my emails thing that got her in trouble. If it's on company time, and the company dime, You bet I will look into it.StephenActually she was spying on fellow board members, not employees of the company. So, illegalities aside, there is the whole issue of ethics. Or as was revealed by her behavior, a lack of ethics.
Alright fine, I would have been spying on the board members also, as what they do influences the company.Stephen
SCO vs IBM - currently stayed but mostly now consisting of IBMs counter claims with very little if any of SCOGs claims likely to make it to trial. It could be unstayed now that there is a final judgement in SCO vs Novell. Appeals in that case could cause a further stay (and appeals have been begun).Redhat vs SCO - Redhat charged that SCOG was engaging in a FUD campaign that damages Redhats business. Currently stayed. Since SCO is being thoroughly beaten by Novell and IBM with attendant publicity showing the alleged FUD to be false neither side has attempted to reopen the case.SCO vs Novell - This case was started by SCO claiming that Novell owed them millions in damages for "Slandering their title". SCO had all its claims dismissed. Novell was ruled to have retained copyright of Unix SVRX. Further SCO was ruled to have illegally converted money rightfully Novells and now has been ordered to pay that money to Novell ~$2.5 million plus ~$.9 million in interest mounting daily until paid. Possible legal fees to be added. Without the resolution of the SUSE vs SCO Arbitration in Europe the final judgement can't be made of course. Appeal just begun. Confirmed Novells right to order SCO to waive the IBM lawsuit (and similar ones involving Unix licensees).SUSE vs SCO Arbitration in Europe potential windfall to SCO if they should somehow win of ~$10 million I believe and to Novell if they win up t ~$100 million, which they can't collect as SCO doesn't have it. The only way Novell can get this money is if A/ SCO is bought by a wealthy "sugar daddy" or B/ the corporate veil can be pierced to a wealthy corporate backer of the lawsuits (if such in fact exists). The arbitration was stayed by the Bankruptcy judge at the request of SCO.SCO vs Autozone - SCO alleged that Autozone included "code, structure, sequence and/or organization" from SCOs Unix SVRX (unless they meant UnixWare or OpenServer the SCO vs Novell case says SCO doesn't own it so the case would fail SCO on that alone). They do mention "SCO shared libraries" which if they exist could be from SCO Unix variants. Unstayed over the objections of SCO no progress since.SCO vs Daimler Chrysler - The basis of this lawsuit is that DC did not do a very extensive audit called for by SCO and did not respond promptly to the audit "request". Everything dismissed except whether DC responded promptly to the audit SCO called for. The things they wanted to audit were ruled by the judge to be things they had no right to audit. SCO dropped the "respond promptly" issue rather than go to trial.SCO of course has also declared Chapter 11 Bankruptcy to try and stave off final liquidation and some think to avoid the lawsuits that SCO itself started. The bankruptcy automatically stayed all these lawsuits and only the SCO vs Novell has so far gone forward.Also twice (in 2003 and 2007) in Germany the courts have ordered SCO to either prove their case against Linux or cease their claims. They have twice agreed to cease the claims and at least once been fined and I believe both times had to pay court costs. The 2003 offense resulted in a 10,000 Euro fine and though I am not sure the fine may have been the same the 2nd time.
To be fair, Journalists are beneath my comtempt, as for the others, Shouldn't all information be made to a chairperson in order to run the business? If not, then how can one make informed choices? Besides, It was never proven that she new how the information was coming from (from what I remember)But yes, If knowing what is going on in your company is against the law, then that is one law I would have broken. Seems like more Regulation BS that one must go through. Stephen
HP also said that the outside firms used to obtain the identity of the source of the leak might have used a technique called pretexting to obtain telephone records of calls made by HP directors from their home phones and cell phones.
Investigators used a variety of less-than-legal methods to obtain the information. Most notably, they obtained phone records for reporters and board members by way of 'pretexting', or calling carriers and lying about their identities. Spyware-laced emails were also sent, and Dunn was even said to be mulling over the placement of spies in newsrooms.
Explain your solid support of Sara Palin. Was she the "rule to your exception"?
Quote from: Sirgod on November 26, 2008, 07:45:33 pmTo be fair, Journalists are beneath my comtempt, as for the others, Shouldn't all information be made to a chairperson in order to run the business? If not, then how can one make informed choices? Besides, It was never proven that she new how the information was coming from (from what I remember)But yes, If knowing what is going on in your company is against the law, then that is one law I would have broken. Seems like more Regulation BS that one must go through. StephenAh.. but once a company is publically traded, it isn't YOUR company any longer. It belongs to the shareholders and is regulated under very strict laws. This is one reason it is often advisable to not have the previous owner continue as the CEO when a company makes the leap from private to public.
Topic: Top 10 WORST chief executives in the technology business, (Read 4692 times)