|
No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored" |
|
Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 03:30 AM EDT
|
It seems SCO is so pleased with response to its SCOsource licensing, it doesn't need to send out any invoices. Oh, and you have until the 31st before the price goes up on those invoices they aren't sending and you weren't going to pay anyway: The SCO Group has backed off a plan to send invoices to corporate users in order to prod them into buying licenses for their use of Linux, an operating system the company argues violates its Unix intellectual property.
In addition, the Lindon, Utah-based company has extended until Oct. 31 a deadline after which it planned to double prices for the Linux license. Previously, the company had said the prices would increase Wednesday. "The executives have said we haven't had to do it yet," SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said of the invoice plan. "They're happy with progress in the licensing program." SCO's satisfaction with the reaction to their licensing scheme will puzzle readers of their most recently filed Amendment No. 2 to Form S-3, which lists nobody new as having signed up.
In other news, their stock was airborne again, thanks to some buddies at Deutsche Bank, and just in the nick of time, too, since those Vultus shares were getting ready to be sold and normally, as it has been explained to me by SCO in the S-3, that sort of an event might tend to dilute value: . . . SCO's stock surged $4.97, or 32 percent, to close at $20.50 Wednesday, after Deutsche Bank analysts Brian Skiba and Matthew Kelly initiated coverage of the company with a "buy" rating and a $45 price tag. Why $45? Nobody but DB can figure that part out, or at least nobody I know. Why Deutsche Bank, you may ask? For the moment, I'll just list a few links you can go to and see how Canopy Group companies and Deutsche Bank have been holding hands for some time. Make of it what you will. You might want to start here, where in August DB was fined by the SEC for improprieties in the HP-Compaq merger, failing to disclose a conflict of interest. Then check out the history of Deutsche and Canopy companies here and here and here and here (where we learn that Deutsche Bank migrated to Linux itself after SCO's warning, oddly enough), and here (Altiris was another Canopy company), and here and here. The only other analyst tracking SCO said that DB has"made a mistake": The only other analyst who covers SCO is Dion Cornett of Decatur Jones Equity Partners, according to Thomson First Call. He has an underperform rating on the stock. "Investing in SCO is like buying a 'lottery ticket'," Cornett said Wednesday. "I think at the end of the day, the lottery ticket is not a winner," he added. "They will not prevail in their lawsuit against IBM." ... Cornett believes that IBM fights to the death when it believes it's right, as it clearly does here, and therefore a settlement is unlikely. Hmm. Linux. Lottery ticket. That reminds me of something.... Even if SCO could convince a jury it was right, IBM would win on appeal, this analyst says: "I think it's a stretch to think that an appellate court is going to overturn 100 years of copyright law," he said. Cornett has a $6 price target on SCO, based on a discounted cash flow analysis. Oh, that. The old-fashioned kind of analysis. Discounted cash flow, indeed. Of course, whoever made out like a bandit today doesn't care what Mr. Cornett thinks. The folks selling today did just fine, thanks. And as for making a mistake, well, maybe they're just playing a different game. And as for Skiba's "analysis" that SCO could hit the jackpot, it's based in part, according to the document, on his belief that SCO, if it wins, will be able to sue millions of Linux users. Dream on. If, in some upside-down crazed legal world SCO won, nobody would use Linux any more rather than pay a dime to SCO, I'm certain. We'd all switch to BSD or the HURD or whatever new stuff those wonderful programmers come up with like magic. And SCO would be left with a legacy version of software nobody would ever touch or fix for them to time indefinite, even forever. Then they'd have two old legacy operating systems nobody wants. Those who bought today under Skiba's analysis may end up just as mad as the class action litigants in this securities case, where, oddly enough, a report by a Brian Skiba is mentioned in the complaint. His wisdom about SCO can be tasted in this excerpt: The IBM lawsuit and the potential for Linux licensing deals offer plenty to be excited about, while failure would render the shares worthless, in our view. And in this report from thestreet.com, he says to watch your step: "This is not for widows and orphans," Skiba said of an investment in SCO. "Hedge funds would be a more appropriate market to buy this stock." Hedge funds, however, may be on the other side. Currently, almost 12% of the stock's float is short, and the days to cover short interest went up to 5.13 on Sept. 15 from 4.51 on Aug. 15. Widows and orphans better stand clear, all right. But did they? Reuters and others reported a 38% jump, but that turned out, from all I've seen, not to have been true. But, as you know, I'm no wizard in the stock market, so I could have missed something. The highest figure I could find was 33%, but hey, this is nostalgia day, harking back to the good old days, when there was plenty of money to be made off of fools who weren't smart enough to protect their retirement years by sufficient cynicism about those Wall Street swashbucklers. Speaking of cynicism, this tidbit:
Skiba doesn't own shares of SCO. Deutsche Bank may seek to provide investment banking services to the company. And to cap off our cynical mystery tour, this gem, from a SCO press release today: The SCO® Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX -News ), a leading provider of business software solutions, today announced its ranking -- number 75 -- on the 2003 Deloitte Technology Fast 500, a ranking of the 500 fastest growing technology companies in North America. The Deloitte Technology Fast 500 rankings are based on average percentage revenue growth over a five-year period, from 1998-2002. SCO revenues grew 5,978 percent during this period. SCO president and CEO, Darl McBride, credits the company's increased revenue growth to a renewed focus on SCO's core UNIX business, strategic Web Service initiatives and continued commitment toward protecting its valuable intellectual property.
"As a company, we've worked hard to ensure that our company is in a cash-positive position," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group. "It's an honor to receive this type of recognition from Deloitte." "Attracting enough customers to maintain four digit growth over five years makes a strong statement about the quality of a company's product and its leadership," said Mark Evans, national managing partner of Deloitte's Technology, Media & Telecommunications Group. "We commend SCO for making the Deloitte Technology Fast 500 with a phenomenal 5,978 percent growth rate over five years." To qualify for the Deloitte Technology Fast 500, a company must be a public or private entity that is headquartered in North America. The company must have a sole focus on technology-defined as any company that owns proprietary technology that contributes to a significant portion of the company's recorded operating revenues. You might like to compare that press release with this amendment to their September S-3, which isn't up on the SEC board yet, but is on Edgar: If the market for UNIX continues to contract, it may adversely affect our business. Our revenue from the sale of UNIX-based products has declined over the last eight quarters. This decrease in revenue has been attributable to the worldwide economic slowdown, lower information technology spending, and increased competitive pressures from alternative operating systems. If the demand for UNIX-based products continues to decline, and we are unable to develop new products and services that successfully address a market demand, our business will be adversely affected. Decline for the past 8 quarters and you make Deloitte's Fast 500? I wonder which kind of "fast" they mean? So there you have it folks, a very fast day in SCOville. And, no, this isn't investment advice. I'm just putting my research results in front of you, so you can understand the day's events and can follow along. Let me guess. Could you use an antidote? Try this article about Linus (some gratuitous snottiness and ignorance on the reporter's part about rms, which is mirrored in the title of the article, but otherwise enjoyable, and Linus doesn't support the reporter's attempt to drag him into it) and while you're at Wired anyway, how about one on the open source method being used in many other areas besides software. Kind of like Groklaw, if you think about it.
|
|
Authored by: egan on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 04:24 AM EDT |
Reuters reported the close-to-high interday:
High.. 10/15 $21.57
Close 10/14 $15.53
Difference... $ 6.04
And 6.04 / 15.53 = 38% +
SCOX closed 10/15 $20.50
Interestingly, SCOX traded high volumes on the previous two days, with no news
released to drive higher trading volumes: 10/13 ~1 million shares, 10/14 ~1.5
million shares. The volume on 10/15 was approximately the sum, ~2.5 million
shares. Do you suppose Deutsche Bank might have tipped off some of its friends?
Like maybe a few hedge funds that just happen to be fronts for some Microsoft
and Sun executives? Deutsche Bank's emails and phone logs should interest the
SEC someday.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
What's new on Red Hat? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 05:20 AM EDT |
A while ago (around the time of SCOForum) I read a small
interview with Darl McBride in which he stated that his
number one aim was to get the stock price to around
$45/$46. Unfortunatley I can no longer find it, does
anyone else remember this? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 05:29 AM EDT |
Speaking of emails, please don't anyone send any over the top nasty
email to anyone at Deutsche Bank over this. I believe there are some
who would like that very much. The report records as if it were true that
there have been two denial of service "attacks" on SCO so far, as if
they
are expecting the crazed "Linux zealots" to go wild again. Yes,
it's
infuriating and unfair and I believe untrue, but in the end, what will
matter is who wins in court, and we can help or hurt, nothing in
between, and restraint pays off in courtrooms. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 06:21 AM EDT |
"The Deloitte Technology Fast 500 rankings are based on average percentage
revenue growth over a five-year period, from 1998-2002. SCO revenues grew 5,978
percent during this period."
I found this statement interesting. I mean, in particular, that the period of
data collection for this statistic ends with 2002.
Seems like Ransom Love was doing a pretty good job after all.
Darl McBride's comments that SCO's inclusion on this list is due to SCO's
"protection" of its "intellectual property" is clearly
just more FUD, since SCO's actions in regard to its "intellectual
property" didn't begin until 2003.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Mark Levitt on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 06:56 AM EDT |
before I can file a complaint with the SEC?
I'm assuming that the SEC won't really take you seriously unless you actually
own shares in a company and have lost money.
Can I just buy one share, wait for the inevitable implosion, and then have
"standing" to file a complaint with the SEC?
I hate to dirty myself by buying SCOX, but I'd hate even more to miss the
chance to see these guys behind bars...
Of course, if Ken Lay is still walking around free, I don't suppose anything
like that will happen. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 07:00 AM EDT |
just doing a little reading on their web site
isnt it odd that they are a tax advisor type of group
they do risk management also?
are we seeing a big picture here?
boise's specialy is tax cases
deloitte is tax cases?
is there a pattern developing?
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Deloitte - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 09:47 AM EDT
- Deloitte - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 09:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 08:36 AM EDT |
I thought SCO was forbidden from claiming code that has not been proven to be
owned by them. Was this meeting in Germany? Has anyone contacted the LinuxTAG
group, or the German courts about false SCO claims in Germany?
Norman Madden[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 08:58 AM EDT |
No Invoices?
Can we sue SCO for false advertising (class action anyone)?
SCO said that they have identified over 10,000 Linux users and SCO promised that
LINUX users would be sent invoices on Oct. 15th! SCO makes a promise, then they
don't deliver, they promise, then they don't deliver...! It's just like
Microsoft OS and Office application upgrade promises! Promise and then don't
deliver!
Only this time... It's SCO and their house of straw, again!
PS - if DB is making absurb predictions about SCO stock just to get investment
bank business... then, call the New York State Attorney General, the SEC, and
anyone else you can think of - as a bunch of investment folks are in court right
now over such kinds of conflicts of interests (right now)!
NO INVOICE. Darn it! Somebody call a lawyer, please!
Can we sue for emotional distress? Does anyone feel battered?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gumout on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
For those financial wizards out there, is this "Amendment No. 2 to Form
S-3" a move to cover there pump-and-dump asses from the SEC and other
Feds?
---
Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gumout on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
Do you suppose Deutsche Bank has paid their Linux license fee?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/25/1059084186065.html
"Data collected by Netcraft showed that, since the warning was issued,
over 100 enterprises had migrated to Linux with some of the more notable ones
being Royal Sun Alliance, Deutsche Bank, SunGard, T-online and Schwab."
---
Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 10:13 AM EDT |
Skiba in August:
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/erp/article.php/2245911
My question, is his report based on new information, or is he using the info he
talked about August.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored" - Authored by: Thanatopsis on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 10:45 AM EDT
- No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored" - Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 11:18 AM EDT
- No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored" - Authored by: tcranbrook on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 12:05 PM EDT
- No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 12:08 PM EDT
- IBM's mythical timelines - Authored by: mac586 on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 01:45 PM EDT
|
Authored by: gumout on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 10:13 AM EDT |
Anybody wanna' wager that Deutsche Bank is the mysterious
"Fortune 500" licensee ?
---
Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 10:20 AM EDT |
I am not annoyed, frankly I don't care
A few days ago most everybody who posts to GROKLAW was happy about the progress
in the IBM and Red Hat cases
Since then nothing negative in these cases has happened AFAIK. In fact, we've
had SCO seeking more delay, and apparently forgetting to sign papers when
submitting them to the court.
If anything, this could be the last gasp, or nearing one.
By the way, has anybody researched when that that report of fast growing
companies actually was generated. While SCO are getting press for it now, was
the report published earlier? Anybody?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gumout on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
If current cosmological evolutionary theory is correct SCO
still has 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 years
remaining to extend it's license deadline before it's too late
to collect.
---
Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 10:46 AM EDT |
About that Fast 500
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2003/Oct/1020583.htm
How do companies qualify? To qualify for the Fast 500, entrants must have had
1998 operating revenues of at least $50,000 USD and $75,000 CD for the United
States and Canada, respectively; and 2002 operating revenues must be at least $1
million USD or CD. Entrants are public or private companies headquartered in
North America. Each entrant must be a “technology company,”
defined as a company that owns proprietary technology that contributes to a
significant portion of the company's operating revenues; or devotes a
significant proportion of revenues to the research and development of
technology. Using other companies' technology in a unique way does not qualify.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gumout on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
The USA Today reports that Micro$oft is allowing it's employees to sell their
stock options.
"Eligible employees can sell stock options -- worthless because the stock
price has not risen in recent years -- to J.P. Morgan Chase for pennies on the
dollar."
Do you suppose Micro$oft Wunderkind will migrate to open source companies ?
---
Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: krow on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 11:03 AM EDT |
Then they'd have two old legacy operating systems nobody
wants. Not really, since they can not distribute code
copyrighted by other people without explicit permission. Even if (and SCOX has
made no real attempt to demonstrate this) there is SCOX copyrighted code in
linux, there is no rational justification for granting the copyright for code
not owned by SCOX or the infringing party (whoever put this imaginary code in
linux) to SCOX -- and that is the majority of the linux kernel. If by some
fluke, SCOX were to win a copyright claim against someone for putting code in
linux, the most likely case is that the code will be removed and linux will
continue on as if nothing happened. If by some other fluke, the code could not
be removed, nobody could distribute the linux kernel. There is no rational
scenario whereby SCOX makes money from end users of linux,
ever.
Cheers, Craig
--- Corollary to Clarke's Third
Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
I am not quick to comment or cast criticism as much as I hope this simply
appears as an observation of the SCO Strategic Initiatives.
Truly I have come to the conclusion that the Microsoft Emperor was built
arriving as the First Kids On The Block with a compelling marketing plan that
made sales. During the past few weeks Microsoft has been hit so hard due to
lack of securing their software that the market is realizing it has NO security
foundation in its Operating Systems and Applications. It is being adapted as
they go. But as long as they continue to aim presenting themselves as Market
Leaders they are inwardly collapsing as a company.
SCO I think is going down the same path as Microsoft. A continue compelling
Marketing Announcements as they have conducted over the past 5 months. But as
the storms hit the market, it will also realize that SCO has an outdated UNIX
Foundation that no longer meets the market needs. All their PUFFERY will come
to an end and they continue to die inwardly and while trying to deceive the
Market Place.
Microsoft & SCO as it appears to be partners are doom to no solid foundation
that consists of Solid Operating Systems Architectures, Apps and Security in
mind to run on them. They will slowly kill themselves as people become more
educated due do the lack of solidarity in their Products and Services.
By MDW
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mikebmw on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
Here is a recent interview by Linux Devices with Bruce Perens on the Cisco /
Linksys GPL violation.
Linux Devices
Interview [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&tid=c
ald&sid=1600684464&mid=52591&thr=52591&cur=52591
Someone is either about to get slapped with a lawsuit if it is a hoax, or things
are about to get more interesting.
Read the whole thread at the link above.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: worldyroyster on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
Hi there.
While I believe that the case against SCO has been amply made here
and elsewhere, I believe that it may be of interest to introduce some nuance to
the excessive self-righteousness and holier-than-thou attitudes displayed by
some (many) of the linux zealots here and on other forums.
As I said, I will
not delve on the material against SCO here, this is amply and ably done by PJ
and others. I will simply introduce some doubt to achieve some balance:
doubt/skepticism is the prerequisite of any intelligent opinion on any subject,
and pre-packaged certainty and hurd mentality has seldom yielded much
insight.
So here are the points that I think the anti-SCO crowd could
possibly consider before posting their next rant (Disclaimer: IANAD and
IANAL):
1- Yes, the SCO case is a contractual dispute.
Everybody
mentions the sentence of the AT&T letter stating that all derivative works
are owned by IBM. However, I have not seen the following sentence, taken from
the main agreement, in any of the anti-SCO legally-leaning postings: "Such right
[the license rights] includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to
prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting
materials are treated hereunder as part of the original software
product."
This is the Section 2.01 from the main agreement, that the side
letter refers to when it says that derivatives are "owned by you [IBM]".
The
problem here is that we have on one hand "treated hereunder as part of", and on
the other hand a blunt "owned by". The thing is, they don't mean the same thing,
and are not mutually-exclusive. Ownership doesn't mean they can do anything they
please with it. I may own a gun, but not be allowed to go shoot anyone I please
with it. So IBM may own the derivative works (meaning that AT&T cannot for
example decide to just take it from them and license them to someone else, or
even just use them), but they may still fall under all the non-disclosure
criteria set out all over the agreements.
So all this "IBM owns the works,
period" talk is far, far, from being the kind of slam-dunk that simple-minded
anti-SCO-ites think.
AIX is after all "a UNIX", and as such it may all fall
under the disclosure restrictions of the agreement, depending on the extent of
how "derivative works" or "modifications" is understood by a given court when/if
this thing goes to trial, and depending on how IBM managed this, from a
development perspective, over the years, in terms of trees, linkages and
dependencies. That's a lot of "depending" on complex issues, and nobody can
certify today how a legal process will eventually rule on this.
2-
Irrevocable license.
how can anyone take seriously the notion of an
irrevocable license? A license is this: "I have this right, and I grant it to
you, under these conditions, for that much money." How can anyone in their right
minds think that once you've paid up, the conditions that you've paid against
don't apply anymore? The bottom line is: if a licensee doesn't abide by the
conditions set in the license agreement, well, the license is not longer
granted, however many numbnuts capitalise the word IRREVOCABLE.
3-
Monterey.
I have yet to see any posters really wonder about what IBM
really did with the whole Monterey project pull-out, how much of SCO's
development effort was thus wasted for SCO, and, indeed, how much of that
effort, or SCO's "UNIX on Intel" knowledge, finally either benefited IBM one way
or another, and/or finally made its way to Linux by way of IBM.
We don't know
about this, there are no public records, and this has nothing to do with the
initial AT&T licensing agreement. Why on earth should we simply trust IBM on
this? There is room here for big surprises, don't you think?
4- IBM's
Patent play.
very often anti-SCO people will gloat that even if SCO's
case is proven right, well, they'll be toast anyway because IBM has the patent
WMD to nuke them.
So, that's good, is it? What this is basically saying is
"even if IBM actually has played foul and is found guilty of ripping off SCO,
then we don't care, we're still happy if IBM tanks SCO because Darl is such a
moron." That's sick.
As some of you know, the patent system in the U.S. is a
scandal. Large companies with tons of cash can practically patent the shape of
each of our heads and then sue us for patent infringement. The scope and manner
in which patents are issued clearly are not appropriate with respect to
justifyability or prior art issues. IBM is the largest patent holder in the
world, and can basically kill or inflict grievous harm on most any company
vaguely in the tech field with a patent suit. Read up further on the matter if
you will, but this is absolutely unacceptable, and plays clearly against the
free source game that all the anti-SCO crowd profess to cherish. Let's not can
all the principles that supposedly underpin all this campaign, all in the name
of hurting SCO.
Principles should prevail, not some kind of kindergarden
mentality of IBM is all good because SCO is all bad.
5- GNU/Linux is a
nice and friendly OS developped by volunteer coders accross the
world.
Give it a break... The so-called "enterprise Linux" that is
currently out there, and that is actually making big companies notice, is
basically a GNU/Linux developped by large companies such as, mostly, IBM. I
don't know in terms of lines of code how this translates, but in terms of
usefulness to big corporations, this OS is not the OS that was developped on
their own time by a few thousand nice guys with beards and young guys with
pimples and glasses a few years back. It's an OS developped mostly by hundreds
of IBM and other big players' employees - on company time, with a company
brief.
6- On the other side of the force, just one thing that I've
seen hyped nowhere by the anti-SCO camp (but so much gets posted that I've lost
the track a little lately - so this may already have been hyped up). SCO has
been making a lot of statements that even if IBM has not copied code from UNIX
to Linux, there are UNIX methods, concepts and ideas that IBM has allegedly
transferred to Linux. The thing is, in the Exhibit C, this is handled rather
unequivocally, it seems to me (point 9): "Nothing in this agreement shall
prevent licensee from developing or marketing products or services employing
ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques relating to data processing embodied in
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS (...) provided that LICENSEE shall not copy any code
(...)".
It seems pretty clear, in this case, though only as far as the
AT&T agreement goes, that if IBM did not copy actual code from UNIX/AIX
(yes, even from AIX, see point 1), but merely used the same developers with the
know-how gained from working on AIX, they're in the clear as far as that goes.
But what if this refers to some other Monterey stuff that we don't know
about?
7- SCOX - Strong Sell, Deutsche Bank is the Mafia.
so many
people get so offended that SCOX stock is going up, and keep bashing it. But you
have to realise that many investors have a lot of easy money around that they
use for pure risk-play. In this case, given some of the grey areas that I have
mentionned above, and given the expected timeline of the IBM suit and even the
RH suit (which is something else entirely), this stock is going to have a lot of
movement, up and down, good news and bad news, etc., and today there's no real
reason preventing it to reach higher levels than currently at some point.
So
I'd advise those who think that SCO management deserve to be bashed to stick to
talking about them and their statements, rather than predict stock price
movement going down all the time. It's even more annoying when they keep this
vindictive tone even when the price rises 50%, 100% or more, as if it proved
their point (!). The stock market is not something that people engage in for
humanitarian or moral reasons. It's for making money. If a stock has chances of
going up, well, people will buy it. If it goes up while you keep telling people
it's going down, then you're the village idiot.
I'm all for GNU and Free
SW, and I do think that SCO's behavior sofar in this whole story has been at
best weird, at worst dishonnest and malevolent. I think there's no argument
there. The McBride open letter and other related statements on the Free/Open
Source people and processes are ridiculous; they do seem to have difficulty with
identifying exactly what's theirs vs. what isn't; they keep confusing and
obfuscating the issues statement after statement; their stance on Linux
invoicing defies belief; there are serious questions on their motivations for
litigation re: the stock price, etc.. And this gives legitimate rise to all
sorts of rage and appalled attitudes.
However, I've been getting increasingly
annoyed at the "which side are you on" mentality that has been developping
around this case, coupled with some pitiful bigotry and devotion to IBM. The
case is only starting, and it's not Snow-White against Hanibal Lecter. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: stanmuffin on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - blacklight - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 01:47 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 01:48 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 01:50 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: nabet on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 02:38 PM EDT
- Your check is in the mail - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 02:47 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: nabet on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 02:49 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 03:02 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: nabet on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 03:07 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 04:28 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: sjohnson on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Your day in court is soon coming - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 04:49 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: rand on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 05:58 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: Nathan Hand on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- Replying to Monterey, Trade Secrets, and SCOX - Authored by: agriffin on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 09:37 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 11:22 PM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 12:23 AM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 01:14 AM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 01:23 AM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 01:31 AM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 01:47 AM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: ra on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 05:39 AM EDT
- Take a little distance - Thanks. - Authored by: worldyroyster on Monday, October 20 2003 @ 05:39 AM EDT
- Take a little distance - see the forest - Authored by: chrism on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 10:41 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
I already posted this yesterday<
/a>
but it seems like nobody really noticed this.
Besides the obvious direct
Skiba->Altiris->Canopy Group link, there is a second one which is a little
bit indirect.
On August 7th there were reports that Skiba had just visited
SCO headquarters to look at the source code. But he must have already seen that
presentation during the investors luncheon he himself hosted on July
22nd.
August 8th, Skiba changes the Computer Associates recommendation from
hold to buy.
August 12th, Computer Associates settles a lawsuit with
Center7, another Canopy company.
I'll not write down the conclusion that I
came to, perhaps I've just become far too suspicious and the world really is
just that small. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fb on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
It looks like what's happening is this: the "IP" fight is given up
for lost, and everything that's happening in the Canopy/SCO situation right now
is taking place in the magical world of money. What happens there has no
connection to facts, and the dynamic is invisible to anyone who isn't playing
in that game. Pure poker.
Is it just me, or does anybody else read the situation this way?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: skidrash on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
You really do need to research your posts a little better.
The reason IBM owns IBM's contributions of RCU, SMP, JFS, NUMA are
1. the amendments and side letters come after the main contract. The side
letter says "what you write is yours." Since that came after the
contract which clause do you think applies now?
2. The BSD settlement. Do you think Mitzi Bond will be deposed again? (I don't
know, but I suspect somebody will depose her if this goes further). Do you
think she'll change her story? If she changes her story (faulty memories are
known to do that), who do you think she'll be more angry at, who will the
faulty memories favor? (read Elizabeth Loftus on 'constructed memories' to
get a clue).
3. IBM owns the copyrights
4. IBM ownx the patents
5. these technologies (like XFS) were developed indenpendently of UNIX and added
to UNIX after being developed.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030619.html
SCO CANNOT CLAIM THAT THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE DERIVATIVES OF UNIX BECAUSE THEY
WERE DEVELOPED INDEPENDENTLY OF UNIX, and then added to UNIX as one example of
how the technologies could be used.
Before taking your holier than thou attitude you need to be a little more
knowledgeable about the case you're talking about.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
I learned of a
system whereby one might interperet the contadictory statements made by
Skiba. This tool can also be used to great effect when attempting to divine
meaning from the crypto PR utterances of SCO and flacks.
Thanks
again,
http://timransomsfeeblemind.blog
spot.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
FWIW, Deustche Bank in Spain outsourced all its systems infrastructure to...
IBM!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Newsome on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
Here are the recent documents in the SCO v. IBM case. There's nothing new or
even very interesting, but...:
- #47 -
Certificate of service re: pla's req for admissions by SCO Grp (October 3,
2003)
- #48
-
Certificate of service by Intl Bus Mach Inc re: first supplemental responses and
objections to SCO's first set of interrogatories (October 10, 2003)
- #49 -
Motion by SCO Grp to extend time to respond to IBM's Amended Counterclaims
Against SCO (October 14, 2003)
- #50 -
Order granting [49-1] motion to extend time to respond to IBM's Amended
Counterclaims Against SCO (October 15, 2003)
--- Frank Sorenson [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 05:00 PM EDT |
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031016/lath126_1.html
posted by eamacnaghten
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|