|
Darl Began Legal Review Immediately on Becoming CEO |
|
Monday, September 15 2003 @ 07:14 PM EDT
|
According to this article, dated August 28, 2002, Darl's didn't first think about legally pressing their IP claims long after they had their stock plan in place. It was virtually his first task on becoming CEO:
"The then-Caldera legal team was appointed the task of coming up with a review of the history of Caldera's intellectual properties and their status. The review turned up a stack of license agreements that had gone uncollected for years. To date (remember, McBride has been on board as CEO for only a few weeks), Caldera has already come to agreements with holders of these old licenses that will generate $600,000 in recurring revenue.
"The intellectual property fishing expedition has provided The SCO Group with the legal due diligence to now lay claim to UNIX itself. According to Opinder Bawa, new Senior VP of Technology, 'we own the source to UNIX; it's that simple. If we own the source, we are entitled to collect the agreed license fees.'"
It now appears, then that Bawa was not an uninvolved party who left in disgust. Rather, he appears to have been in support of the steps SCO was then taking. The timing issue is significant, namely that they already had approached and gotten monies from companies to the tune of $600,000. How does this match the millions for the two MS and Sun licenses? I don't know, but I hope someone finds out during the trial. The article also says that back then, McBride understood that Linux is not UNIX:
"To my fellow folk in the Linux community, you need not fear. I specifically asked if, in making that broad a statement about UNIX, The SCO Group was making any legal claim to Linux. According to McBride, 'obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim.'"
Of course, his word meant nothing, but his claim against Linux, judging by the SCOForum code fiasco, seems to be just as valueless as his promises turned out to be.
If you are interested in SCO's inhouse attorney, Ryan E. Tibbits, here's an article he wrote. He was involved, it turns out, in the Caldera, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. case. He says winning a legal fight depends on careful review of documents. Hmm. I hope he's absolutely correct.
|
|
Authored by: eloj on Monday, September 15 2003 @ 07:35 PM EDT |
These are from their 2003-09-15 Q10 filing
"We are informed that
participants in the Linux industry have
attempted to influence participants in
the markets in which we sell our
products to reduce or eliminate the amount of
our products and services
that they purchase. They have been somewhat successful
in those efforts
and will likely continue." -- Page 35
And oh...
this was brought to you by Sun Microsystems and Microsoft:
"During
the three months ended July 31, 2003,
Microsoft Corporation (?Microsoft?)
accounted for approximately
25 percent of total revenue and Sun Microsystems,
Inc. (?Sun?)
accounted for approximately 12 percent of total revenue.
During
the nine months ended July 31, 2003, Microsoft accounted
for
approximately 16 percent of total revenue and Sun accounted
for
approximately 12 percent, of total revenue. There were no
outstanding
receivables from these two customers as of July 31, 2003.
During the three and
nine months ended July 31, 2002, the Company
did not have any customers that
accounted for more than 10 percent
of total revenue." -- Page
19
PS. Sun got a little gift for their money:
"In connection
with the payment of $2,500,000 to us by Sun during the quarter ended July
31, 2003, we granted a warrant to Sun to purchase up to 12,500 shares of our
common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share.
This warrant was valued at $150,000 using the Black-Scholes option-pricing
model and reduced our licensing revenue for the quarter ended July 31, 2003 by
that amount."
-- Page 22
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mac586 on Monday, September 15 2003 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
Here's a pic of last year's SCO Forum
where Darl displays the Unix legacy on stage. It's dated August 26, 2002. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: shaun on Monday, September 15 2003 @ 08:02 PM EDT |
I find this whole "soap opera" fascinating as it unfolds. There is definitely
more to this than what meets the the eye on the surface.
Now as comments and
things come foward we begin seeing a broader picture.
Is MS really behind this?
Not in a hands on method that's for sure but I would be willing to bet they are
privy to some information that McBride provided them. You can bet that SCO has
developed some kind of timeline to the whole affair.
Here is what I think SCO
is trying to do. First they insist that any version of Unix or anything Unix
like is their property. Okay the problem there is BSD and the fact that they
don't own rights or responsibilty to the Unix trademark and one can legally
develop a Unix not based on any AT&T code. Linux isn't officially a Unix either
and it doesn't follow the same guidelines in development. It uses the same
standards because Linus and the other main developers choose to.
By making such
claims and attempting to coerce the perception they are right they are actually
trying to get a large and substantial chunk of the server market. Well IBM has
the deepest pockets and AIX is based on their code so they go after them. Linux
is gaining in an enterprise server market and it's a serious threat. There are
your first set of targets. They want to revoke IBM's AIX license and take over
that part of the market share.
If they can somehow bring Linux down they remove
the most serious threat there is since Linux is actually replacing Unix systems.
Remember that Linux is a serious threat to the Unix Market, more so than it is
to MS.
So my opinion on this is that McBride in secret made a deal with MS.
They would go after Linux and make an attempt to destroy the GPL/LPGL licenses.
Something MS dared not try themselves. In exchange MS would "purchase" a license
from SCO they don't need. If SCO was successful then they could get Linux off
both the server and desktop. Sun is involved because they see IBM as a serious
threat with their new Linux initiative that could be damaging to Sun's business.
However, Sun should realize that if SCO is even mildly sucessful that they will
most likely fall on the SCO RADAR. As will HP and other Unix developers. This is
all conjectured theory of course and has no substantiating evidence. In my mind
SCO was not looking for a buyout they are trying to change the market and reap
revunues in ways that are without morals.
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 15 2003 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
"The review turned up a stack of license agreements that had gone uncollected
for years. To date (remember, McBride has been on board as CEO for only a few
weeks), Caldera has already come to agreements with holders of these old
licenses that will generate $600,000 in recurring revenue.
"
Those
were old UNIX licenses that had fallen through the cracks in the transfer to
Caldera, being brought current on their payments ... this has nothing to do with
SCO's claims that Linux users will owe licensing fees.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, September 15 2003 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
it talked about contracts ,it was an interview and i wish my memory was
better
but BMW jumped at me because we have BMW here in town
and i knew the
company was based in germany
i will keep searching and see if i can find
where
br3n --- br3n [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, September 15 2003 @ 09:15 PM EDT |
gerhard just inb case you miss the post on the other comment list
it was posted
by frank brickle
it was a newsforge story that pointed to a 2 month old frotune
magazine interview with darl
it mentioned BMC,BMW,and Ball,State University by
name.talked about blue folders kept in a public viewing room
they are unix
license but that didnt mean they were safe
br3n --- br3n [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, September 15 2003 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5077021.html
this is a sad one
it is so biased
if you are liable to get upset dont even go to it
br3n --- br3n [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Monday, September 15 2003 @ 11:04 PM EDT |
Just found this article.<
/a> A quote:"Red Hat's legal action does nothing more than seek general guidance
for the marketplace as to the legal rights SCO has with respect to Linux
software," according to the motion. "This is an impermissible use of the
Declaratory Judgment Act."
Thanks
again http://timransomsfeeblemind.blogspot.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BigTex on Monday, September 15 2003 @ 11:07 PM EDT |
Great article here. The Trades are catching on:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1268276,00.asp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: freecode_99 on Monday, September 15 2003 @ 11:17 PM EDT |
Okay, they have lied, backpedaled and denied. What's next? I think I know. Sun
will buy them out and claim ownership of UNIX and Linux. Then try to hold up
Microsoft for $.
It would fit their plans, given their actions. You read it here first.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 15 2003 @ 11:27 PM EDT |
"The review turned up a stack of license agreements that had gone
uncollected for years. To date (remember, McBride has been on board as CEO for
only a few weeks), Caldera has already come to agreements with holders of these
old licenses that will generate $600,000 in recurring revenue."
Given SCO's recent track record, someone should examine these licenses and
Code. It may be that the holders of these licenses are due a refund. They may
have Linux or BSD code in these products. They may have violated the GPL. SCO
may no longer have the rights to collect under these licenses. Some sort of
class action may be appropriate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 03:32 AM EDT |
I was looking for information about TFG and Tarantella and I found this article
from the same time period.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-939881.html
Tarantella used to be a major TSG investor, but TSG bought them out. Tarantella
and MTI Technology owned 31% of the TSG. At the time 31% was $4.1 million
dollars. It probably would have changed things if Tarentella still had a seat
on the board.
TSG was going to get new investment by the end of October. In October TSG
orderred the old Microsoft court documents to be destroyed.
I'm not saying that the events are necesarilly cause and effect. But
obviously, at some point Darl had to contact Microsoft and Microsoft did want
the documents destroyed and Microsoft has paid TSG $7 million every quarter so
far this year.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|