Two weeks ago, I wrote the "SCO should win" side for a debate surrounding the outcome of The SCO Group vs. IBM trial. To write it, I reviewed SCOs allegations, simplified them down to the core arguments and created what I envisioned SCOs legal team would present as an opening statement in court. I even fact-checked it with SCO to ensure that it matched up with the companys beliefs. It did.
At the same time, Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols wrote a counter-piece based largely on the arguments that IBM and the Linux community were making to discredit SCOs position. His approach was different because his background is different from mine. He covers the subject more than I do, and he did a very credible job of stating the Linux side. The general reaction from the Linux community is that he mostly got it right.
Why look at the arguments coming from both sides? I envisioned the debate as a way to help readers to understand the entrenched positions on both sides. What I left out was the "why" behind my approach, and Ill correct that now.
Ive had several careers. The first one was with the company now known as The Walt Disney Co., and the second landed me my first executive title (head of operations by way of director of marketing). The subsequent falling-out between the partners who owned that firm led to the third, which was in litigation, with my goal being that of becoming a judge. I spent about two years training for the position, but after those two years, I realized it wasnt for me. I did, however, learn a lot about litigation.
In addition to the training, I was personally involved in one property ownership trial that resulted from that partnership dispute and which set longevity records (over 13 years). It generated legal fees greater than the value of the property. Even worse, everyone involved, including me, went around armed to the teeth, convinced that assassination was a very real threat. It stopped being fun after about 30 seconds.