decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

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, 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 SCOŽ 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.


No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored" | 156 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
How Reuters figured 38%
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 | # ]

Target $45
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 | # ]

No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored"
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
are expecting the crazed "Linux zealots" to go wild again. Yes,
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 | # ]

No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored"
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 | # ]

How much SCOX do I need....
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?


[ 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
SCO breaks German law, Again?
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 | # ]

No Invoices.... and depression sinks in!
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
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 | # ]

Amendment No. 2 to Form S-3
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

Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Deutsche Bank uses Linux
Authored by: gumout on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 09:31 AM EDT
Do you suppose Deutsche Bank has paid their Linux license fee?

"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 | # ]

No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 10:13 AM EDT

Skiba in August:

My question, is his report based on new information, or is he using the info he
talked about August.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Deutsche Bank and Fortune 500
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 | # ]

Why I am not annoyed
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 | # ]

SCO: time is money.
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 | # ]

No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 10:46 AM EDT
About that Fast 500

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 | # ]

The long slo-o-ow slide.
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

Do you suppose Micro$oft Wunderkind will migrate to open source companies ?

Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply!

[ Reply to This | # ]

No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored"
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.


Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO & Microsoft Show Will Die!
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.


[ Reply to This | # ]

OT. Interview with Bruce Perens on Cisco
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 | # ]

Yahoo SCOX Message board claim: SCO engineer says SCO copied code
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 12:23 PM EDT

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 | # ]

Take a little distance - see the forest
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 | # ]

No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored"
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 | # ]

IP fight, money games
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 | # ]

Take a little distance - see the forest
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.

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 | # ]

How to Interperet Skiba, SCO, et al
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,

[ Reply to This | # ]

No Invoices, Deutsche Bank Comes Through Again, and SCO is "Honored"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 03:55 PM EDT
FWIW, Deustche Bank in Spain outsourced all its systems infrastructure to...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Recent Documents
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 | # ]

posted on yahoo scox board
Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 05:00 PM EDT

posted by eamacnaghten


[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )