Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 66.81.37.60]
on May 06, 2008 12:20 AM
"The implication, which McBride vigorously denied, was that SCO had misled the stock-buying public in SEC documents in 2003 and 2004."
Actually, reading the transcript, my impression was exactly the opposite. The implication was that SCO (i.e. McBride) was attempting to mislead the judge (i.e. lying) in the immedite action.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
As the SCO rolls
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.81.37.60] on May 06, 2008 12:20 AMActually, reading the transcript, my impression was exactly the opposite. The implication was that SCO (i.e. McBride) was attempting to mislead the judge (i.e. lying) in the immedite action.
#