Dr Laurie Miles wrote:
> I agree, but...
>
> The problem is, it would probably involve huge payments to all concerned because
> of exit clauses (I speculate, as we have never been given access to the
> contracts, despite them being so important...)
Possibly, but Accenture didn't pay the penalty their contract was touted
as holding over them when they saw se^U^U^U^U^U^U^Uhad second thoughts
about their capacity to achieve the impos^U^U^U^U^U^U^U^U^U^Ufulfill
their contract.
If iSoft or their successors and relatives and ubercontractors are in a
position to demonstrate that iSoft is at the moment in a position to
turn out the software then I suppose they might be able to obtain
something but I think if they were, the market would be valuing iSoft
differently.
If iSoft -could_ be in such a position then it would argue that so could
other people, but that is not an argument I'd care to try to prove.
I suspect that everyone agreeing to do something else, plus or minus
lying^U^U^U^U^Ucarefully dealing with the public relations aspects
about what it is they are doing and have in the end accomplished is a
more likely and even a better course.
--
A
|