|
SCO Moves Its 4th Quarter Teleconference Up From Dec. 8 to Dec. 3 |
|
Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 06:30 AM EST
|
SCO has announced its fourth quarter webcast and conference call. It's been moved up to Dec. 3 at 11 AM. It had earlier been announced for Dec. 8. This couldn't have anything to do with the Motion to Compel Discovery oral arguments, now scheduled for Dec. 5, if SCO doesn't cough up some answers to IBM's interrogatories pretty soon, could it? Thanks to Dr. Stupid for noticing the change.
What I found interesting is their new self-description on the same page: "The SCO Group, Inc., formerly known as Caldera International, Inc., is primarily engaged in the provision of reliable, cost-effective UNIX operating systems and software products to small and medium-sized business markets. The Company's SCOsource division was formed in January 2003 to review and enforce its UNIX intellectual property rights. It is also developing Web-based applications and products and services to facilitate connections to the Internet for its customers. The Company markets and distributes its software and related products indirectly through distributors and solutions providers, as well as directly to end user customers. The distributors include value-added resellers (VARS), original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and systems integrators. The Company's products are marketed primarily in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Canada and Latin America. In July 2003, it acquired the assets, engineering personnel and technology of Vultus Inc." If you didn't know better, you'd think they were staying in business. Reuters has a more full description, as they call it, but it's actually an outdated one (although not too out-dated since it mentions United Linux) because they describe SCO as a combined Unix, Linux house. Well, who can keep up with SCO's changes? They're like a chameleon. It keeps us all hopping, trying to keep our web sites up-to-date with their doings. I'm positively tuckered out myself. But here's how they used to be described: "SCO's business has continued to focus on developing and marketing reliable, cost-effective Linux and UNIX software products and related services for the small business market. The Company continues to market SCO OpenServer and SCO UnixWare products. In addition, the Company renamed its Linux product offering to SCO Linux, powered by United Linux, to draw on the strength of the SCO brand. The Company is continuing to sell Linux and UNIX products and services to customers through an indirect, leveraged worldwide channel of partners, which includes distributors and solution providers. This worldwide distribution channel locally supports customers and resellers with minor modifications that fit their particular country's needs. . . .
"SCO Linux
"SCOLinux, powered by UnitedLinux, is an ideal product for building Internet-enabled business solutions. Based on the Linux 4.0 kernel, the product is a fully integrated and stable Linux operating system. SCO Linux saves users significant time and money in the installation, configuration, deployment and management of business solutions by providing default working configurations for secure Web, file, print and network infrastructure servers. Each configuration is out-of-the-box secure, easily deployed and manageable, using browser-based remote management and configuration utilities bundled in each system. SCO Linux is designed to permit existing UNIX-based users to migrate to Linux. SCO Linux is easy to manage and maintain using any of the management tools that are bundled with the product. The latest release, Linux 4.0, began shipping November 2002. . . .
"Support Services
"The Company provides a full range of pre- and post-sales technical support for all of its products, including SCO OpenServer, SCO UNIXWare and SCO Linux. It also provides technical support to all of its partners, including resellers, hardware and software vendors and solution providers, as well as directly supporting its end user customers. Technical support services include a range of options from single incident e-mail and telephone support, to dedicated enterprise level support agreements. Customers seeking additional technical support directly from the Company may enter into service agreements that best suit their needs.
"SCO's UNIX and Linux consulting services include project management, software development and programming, migration tools and services, as well as development of customized operating systems. The Company assists its end user customers and solution providers in planning, creating, implementing and deploying business application solutions.
"The Company competes with Microsoft, IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Sun, SuSe and Hewlett Packard." [emphasis added] It's also of interest that they list IBM, SuSE and Red Hat as their competition, so they can't say they were never a Linux company. Do you remember from,
IBM's Memorandum in Support of its Second Motion to Compel, IBM asking SCO whether the code in question was ever distributed or otherwise made publicly available by SCO and SCO giving a non sequitur answer that it "never authorized, approved or knowingly released any part of the subject code that contains or may contain its confidential and proprietary information and/or trade secrets for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution." Well, since they danced around and wouldn't answer directly, this web page lets IBM know that SCO certainly distributed something they called Linux, with "the Linux 4.0 kernel", whatever that is, apparently what they called that particular distro's kernel. Anyway, the point is they did distribute, and they can hardly plead ignorance of the contents of their distribution, when they offered "a full range of pre- and post-sales technical support" for their Linux products. They'd even write you a personalized version, and I suspect you'd need to notice what was in there to do that. SCO better not tell the court any fibs, or somebody might just tattle on him and tell his Mommy he's being a bad boy.
|
|
Authored by: phrostie on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 07:27 AM EST |
What is the sentence for purgery?
what does it take to prove it?
just getting caught on the stand or a seperate trial?
i'm just finding my happy thoughts for the day.
:-)
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 07:27 AM EST |
Companies do change their earnings announcement dates, so it might be nothing.
On the other hand, if it were connected to Dec 5, watch for SEC filings Dec 3 to
Dec 5.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: phrostie on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 07:30 AM EST |
"I'm positively tuckered out myself."
get some sleep! we can't afford to lose you.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 07:45 AM EST |
SCO fell into a burning ring of fire... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Hygrocybe on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 07:52 AM EST |
Could it be.........possibly, that SCO does NOT want to have to say anything
about the meeting with the judge on 5 December to any of the teleconference
people ? Oh naughty SCO !!!!! Any reasonable firm would want to ensure people
with interest in the firm were kept fully informed of anything that is
happening.....surely ?
---
LamingtonNP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 08:31 AM EST |
SCO is looking for a
Senior
Software Engineer based in Santa Cruz, CA.
Doesn't mention if it will
be a short term contract :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 08:34 AM EST |
Ok, so on Dec. 3 conference, SCO can blabber more stuff which will be helpful
for oral arguments.
BTW: I assume the oral arguments will be on the record, how soon do we think
we'll have to wait to get transcripts? I volunteer (if someone will buy me a
Southwest ticket) to sit and record everything.
Lets see, popcorn, pressurized soccor horn, D-fense sign, blue body paint...
gotta start packing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 08:38 AM EST |
"I'm positively tuckered out myself."
i about fell out of my chair.
then the one about fibs i just laughed so hard i was crying
LOL
PJ you do an awesome job
and it is haighly APPRECIATED
br3n
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tyralf on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 08:52 AM EST |
I bet most of you are used to this by now but still.
More SCO FUD this time by KSL News.
"Linux-users and peaceful protestors like Jason Holt want the code
available...without permission."
IsnĀ“t this what GPL is all about? to use the code WITH permission via the GPL..
just too sad really..
I found the link via linux.org.
http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?sid=58327&nid=8
ON topic.
Great article as always Thanks PJ, keep up the great job but please get some
sleep, we all care about you, you know.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tcranbrook on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 08:56 AM EST |
While we wait for the fun and games of the 5th, another interesting 'IP' case
starts on the 1st, the Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com Inc. case.
http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&
;sid=445&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
"Q: Wasn't this case supposed to go to trial earlier?
A: Yes. The case was originally scheduled for trial in April. In February, the
Court ordered Microsoft to produce hundreds of thousands of pages of documents
that Microsoft had refused to produce months earlier. The trial delay afforded
Lindows.com the opportunity to review those documents in detail.
Q: What did you find in those hundreds of thousands of pages?
A: Lots. Although many are over a decade old, most have been marked highly
confidential so we can't talk about it...yet. We expect the public will learn
the whole story during the course of the trial."
I think this is going to be most interesting as well.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tcranbrook on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 09:24 AM EST |
An interesting discussion of the use and misuse of Subpoena powers. At what
point does SCO cross the line?
http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2003/09/11/riaa_supoenas.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 09:46 AM EST |
SCO is coming here to Italy, and I want to be ready to meet them. Any tips or
advice from those who have gone to their previous meetings?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sco "world tour" protest advice - Authored by: tazer on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 09:50 AM EST
- Sco "world tour" protest advice - Authored by: maxhrk on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 09:52 AM EST
- Sco "world tour" protest advice - Handouts! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 10:06 AM EST
- Tape, transcript, translate, send to RH and CS&M - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 10:13 AM EST
- Sco "world tour" protest advice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 02:21 PM EST
- Sco "world tour" protest advice - Authored by: skidrash on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:02 PM EST
- Sco "world tour" protest advice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:27 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 09:58 AM EST |
IANAL
Right now, IBM contributes to Linux but AFAIK doesn't distribute it.
So, there's not really much an average IBM user (kernel developers aside) could
know about the issues of the case.
If IBM indemnified all their users, the users would be sort of more involved
right?
So could SCO subpoena every IBM user in this case?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 10:19 AM EST |
As we all know Yarro was once a graphic artist and even has credits on the Under
A Killing Moon computer game.
I was looking at the history of another board
member, Steve Cakebread, and
guess what popped out of Google...
Steve Cakebread has credits on the Project Gotham
Racing computer game (published by Microsoft.)
It's certainly possible
that the name "Steve Cakebread" isn't unique, or MobyGames has made an error,
but
I would like to believe than even a busy exec, on the boards of three
different companies at the same time (SCO, SalesForce.com and Autodesk) has time
to spare to write game code... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Killing Moon - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 12:18 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 10:28 AM EST |
<a href="URL here inside double quotes">name of link (can
repeat URL)</a>
Change "Plain Old Text" to "HTML Formatted" at the
bottom of the message screen under "Post Mode"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: John Douglas on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 10:44 AM EST |
Just came across this in a Yahoo Finance posting:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20031113_chander.html
This Penguin May Bite
Linux's Counterattack Against SCO
By ANUPAM CHANDER
----
Thursday, Nov. 13, 2003
very good summary ending with
'SCO's threats to sue are no longer just private disputes. They have become a
matter of intense public interest. They threaten the ability of any and all of
us to have access to a free, open source operating system. They threaten the
very servers that support the Internet, and the computer systems that support
governments and companies. It's time to make SCO show its cards, or fold its
hand.'
---
As a Safety Critcal/Firmware Engineer, everything I do is automatically
incorrect until proven otherwise. (The one aspect of my work that my wife
understands).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 11:03 AM EST |
I think that the teleconference will be SCO's last attempt to pump up SCOX
before Dec. 5.
I am sure that the SEC is watching for SCO's full response. I filed my
complaint in September.
Can SCO avoid a full response by unconditionally withdrawing its suit? Not that
it would do them any good: SCOX would tank as soon as they did, and they would
still have to provide the same information for Redhat's suit and IBM's
countersuit.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nib_maps on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 12:11 PM EST |
Check out
http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/2003/11/13/cz_dl_1113sco.html
Does Daniel Lyons start seeing he's been lied to?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Lyons seeing the light? Looks like fair reporting - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 12:25 PM EST
- OT: Lyons seeing the light? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 12:41 PM EST
- Like all journalists/analysts - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 12:45 PM EST
- FUNNIEST part - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:21 PM EST
- FUNNIEST part - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:21 PM EST
- FUNNIEST part - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:21 PM EST
- FUNNIEST part - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:22 PM EST
- FUNNIEST part - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:22 PM EST
- FUNNIEST part - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:31 PM EST
- FUNNIEST part - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 04:27 PM EST
- Breakthrough! - Authored by: PM on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:16 PM EST
- OT: Lyons seeing the light? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 04:45 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:16 PM EST |
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS5459090567.html
The Open Source Development Lab (OSDL) announced today that Linux kernel
maintainer Andrew Morton will work for the lab under an agreement between Digeo
Inc. (Morton's employer) and OSDL. Morton will be focused exclusively on the
2.6 kernel during its maintenance cycle, the Lab said. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:23 PM EST |
I suspect one of two things here, with the moving up of the tele-conference,
in my order of probability, highest first:
1. Have the tele-conference
before the fatal day when the judge dismisses the case, with prejudice.
2.
Same as number 1. :)
Regards,
Fredrick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: be2weenthelines on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:33 PM EST |
Isn't it true that McBride and the other insiders are not allowed to sell their
stock in the period (20 days?) before the earnings conference call? In that
case, they have to hold the call before they get spanked by the court on Dec
5th. Thursday Dec 4th may be their last chance to grab some cash from this
sorry mess.
be2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: zjimward on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 01:39 PM EST |
Since SCO distributed a Linux distribution I'd be very interested in hearing
SCO's rebuttal to how great they are at keeping track of their source code.
Only because they keep accusing the Open Source community of not knowing who
could put in bad code and if the code is okay to be placed inside GPL code. In
light of this it sounds like they have been ignorant to source code that was
their IP being distributed by their own hand. In the eyes of a court I believe
they don't look on ignorance as a defense. To bad McBride and crew.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: whig on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 02:09 PM EST |
IBM: Your honor, as our Motion to Compel makes clear, SCO has refused thus far
to provide us with specific answers to our interrogatories.
SCO: We have provided a list of files....
IBM: ...which were not responsive. We'd like to know if SCO is going to provide
any specific lines of SCO code which they claim were used improperly.
SCO: We cannot do this until IBM provides us with the code they contributed to
Linux.
Judge: So you're saying you don't know what lines of code IBM used
improperly?
SCO: They had the complete sources to System V...
Judge: That does not appear to be in contention. Are you presently able to
answer IBM's interrogatories specifically or not?
SCO: Presently? Not...as such...
IBM: We move for dismissal at this time due to failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
Judge: Does SCO have any objection?
SCO: We object, your honor. We've sent subpoenas to Linus Torvalds and Richard
Stallman. Now Richard Stallman is the author of the GPL, right? And the GPL is
unconstitutional, un-American, and promotes terrorism. Your honor, this is a
matter of national security.
Judge: That does not make sense.
SCO: Precisely! This does not make any sense! Look at the wookie!
Judge: Case dismissed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sscherin on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:31 PM EST |
http://pacer.
utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000074.pdf
Good reading.. Enjoy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Polar Weasel on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:41 PM EST |
I don't know another way to post a message, so this is a bit OT, but IBM has
made a motion to strike SCO's affirmative defenses 5, 15, and 19 due to the
fact that SCO doesn't back up their accusations of fraud on the part of IBM
with any evidence at all.
I've saved the PDFs of both the motion and the memorandum in support; can I
email them anywhere for posting here?
-Polar Weasel
P.S. So far, my favorite quote is in the Memorandum, in footnote 4: "[In
SCO's 15th Affirmative Defense,] We assume SCO is alleging inequitable conduct
before the United States Copyright Office, notwithstanding its reference to the
United States Patent and Trademark Office."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: phrostie on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 03:52 PM EST |
seems like i remember reading or hearing once about how one of the beatles
helped create Abbey Roads Studio only later to be fighting them over copy rights
to their own songs.
do i have this correct?
are there any similarities that could be of use?
yes, i realize that was UK and not US.
just a thought.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|