|
|
| SCO Teleconference Today -- Boies, McBride and Bench On Expanded Legal Agreement, $$$, and Plans |
 |
|
Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:24 AM EST
|
Can't Get Enough SCO Spin? Than I have good news for you.
SCO has just put out a press release, at 10:28 PM Monday night, announcing a teleconference Tuesday at 11:30 AM, with Darl, Bench and David Boies. Yup. That would be today. They will be talking about the new legal arrangement with Boies' firm, the money and their plans. If they are planning to sue anybody new, this would seem to be a likely moment to say so or at least hint at it. I have no inside info; just guessing. It all seems to be pulled together in haste at the last minute, compared to earlier such press releases.
Here's some of the press release: SCO Invites You to Participate in a Teleconference With: David Boies, Managing Partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner Darl McBride, President and CEO, The SCO Group Robert Bench, CFO, The SCO Group The SCO Group Teleconference Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003, 11:30 a.m. Eastern Time What: SCO Teleconference: SCO will provide further details on its expanded agreement with Boies, Schiller & Flexner and its payment to the firm during the 4th fiscal quarter. Executives will take questions on future plans for this investment.
Where: Toll Free within North America: 1-800-540-0559
International: +1-785-830-1957
Confirmation code to enter the call: 105887
When: Tuesday, Nov.18, 2003
11:30 a.m. Eastern, 8:30 a.m. Pacific
Who: Press and industry analysts interested in the UNIX industry, licensing issues, intellectual property and investment news.
Replay: An audio replay will be available for interested media and analysts.
To gain a copy, e-mail the SCO PR team at scopr@sco.com or the Schwartz Communications team at sco@schwartz-pr.com . Doesn't this seem like kinda short notice? They put out a press release at 10:28 PM on Monday, calling a teleconference for Tuesday at 11:30 AM. You don't suppose they saw people noticed their SEC filing, do you?
Update: There's a second SCO press release, regarding SCO's arrangement with Boies Schiller:
***************************
SCO Expands Scope of its Agreement With Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP And Provides 4th Quarter Financial Guidance
SCO Expands Agreement With Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and Identifies New Copyright Issues
LINDON, Utah, Nov 18, 2003 -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX® operating system, today announced it has expanded the scope of its agreement with its law firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP for the protection of and defense against unauthorized use and exploitation of SCO's intellectual property.
As part of the expanded scope, the firm has been engaged to support SCO regarding issues relating to copyrighted UNIX code incorporated into Linux without authorization or appropriate copyright notices. Code that has been identified includes Unix System V code as well as copyrighted code included in the 1994 settlement between Unix Systems Laboratories, Inc. and Berkeley Software Design, Inc. SCO acquired this code and associated copyrights in 1995 from Novell.
In connection with SCO's $50,000,000 private placement of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock completed on October 16, 2003, SCO has agreed to pay Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and other law firms representing SCO, $1,000,000 in cash and issue 400,000 shares of SCO's common stock. As a result of the issuance of this consideration, SCO anticipates recording a charge to earnings of approximately $8,956,000 in its fourth quarter that ended October 31, 2003. This $8,956,000 charge to earnings is comprised of non-cash expense of $7,956,000 related to the issuance of the 400,000 shares of common stock and $1,000,000 in cash expense.
Additionally, SCO anticipates recording a non-cash charge for the beneficial conversion feature related to the issuance of the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock of approximately $8,741,000 in the fourth quarter that ended October 31, 2003. The beneficial conversion feature represents the intrinsic value of the difference in the Series A conversion price of $16.93 per share and the closing market price of SCO's common stock on October 16, 2003 of $19.89 per share. In addition to the stated dividend rate, dividends on the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock will accrue on the difference between the stated dividend rate and 12% per annum. These dividends will reduce earnings available to common stockholders if or when incurred.
In line with its previous guidance, SCO expects revenue for its fourth quarter ended October 31, 2003 to be in the range of $22,000,000 to $25,000,000. SCO will discuss its full results of operations for its fourth quarter and fiscal year ended October 31, 2003, in a conference call on December 8, 2003.
"We look forward to continuing our work with SCO to protect the Company's important and valuable intellectual property rights," said David Boies, Managing Partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP.
"During the past seven months, our company, along with Boies, Schiller & Flexner, has uncovered a number of substantial software code issues as they pertain to our UNIX intellectual property and Linux," said Darl McBride, President and CEO, The SCO Group, Inc. "By far the most important asset of this company is our ownership of the UNIX operating system and today we are investing in the protection and future of UNIX. Boies, Schiller & Flexner is now moving beyond the contract issues we have with IBM. The firm will be enforcing and defending SCO's intellectual property rights, including the protection of our UNIX System V source code and our copyrights that were reaffirmed as a result of the BSDI settlement agreement."
Note Regarding Forward-looking Statements:
This press release contains forward-looking statements related to SCO's efforts to protect its intellectual property rights, certain non-cash charges to be recorded in its fourth quarter of fiscal 2003 and financial guidance for its fourth quarter that ended October 31, 2003. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties including the risk that SCO may not prevail in pending or contemplated litigation or otherwise be successful in its efforts to protect its intellectual property rights. In addition, SCO's anticipation that it will record certain non-cash charges in its fourth quarter of fiscal 2003 and its stated revenue expectations for its fourth quarter and fiscal year ended October 31, 2003 are subject to the completion of its fiscal 2003 audit and any audit adjustments. Other risks and uncertainties related to these forward-looking statements are set forth in SCO's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
About The SCO Group
The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business solutions. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to all partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services visit http://www.sco.com.
SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc., in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:37 AM EST |
This post is pure conjecture.
The DB press release late Friday I do not think had the effect on the stock they
expected - it did not go up Monday, but down.
I think they are desperate to get the stock back up to the BayStar strike
price.
However, this may be incorrect, this teleconference may have nothing to do with
the falling stock price......[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:56 AM EST |
I think it's safe to assume it has EVERYTHING to do with the stock price.
They're flailing.
Remember the last large big one-day (August?) drop which only ended when SCOG
put out a press release about selling a SCOG license for Linux. There had been
no press releases for weeks before and were none for some time after.
Now there have been no substantial SCOG press releases for some time and we have
a 15% drop over several days, and voila, quelle surprise, Deutche Bank and SCOG
both trying to pump.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 02:17 AM EST |
What happens if the price keeps falling? Wasn't there some backup
clause in the contract with BayStar that would force SCO to compensate
them for the loss?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Hygrocybe on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 02:30 AM EST |
Much of my comment below is "speculative"...but....Surely even a
risk taking speculator-investor could not be that blind and continue to invest
in a firm that is obviously scared stiff of its falling share price, is now
selling large blocks of shares while they can still get substantial amounts of
money for them and is using a 'talk-fest' to try to get the share price back
up - probably by announcing further legal action. But, there is one born every
minute as the saying goes. I keep on wondering where the USA equivalent of the
stock market security commission is hiding itself. Isn't there something that
can be done because eventually this is going to hurt little people - not the big
boys - they all get out with their wallets intact and don't give a hoot about
shattered reputations or ruined lives - just as long as they have plenty of
spending money.
---
LamingtonNP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 02:57 AM EST |
PJ, I think that should read Tuesday at whenever the dang thing is scheduled
for... Thanks for all your hard work!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:11 AM EST |
It will be interesting. I hope somebody records the call, I will be in transit
at the time.
I wonder if Boies will show up, you would think he would have to -- but he was a
no-show at his last scheduled SCO teleconference.
There is little question that this call is a response to the stock price, and to
soften the blow from the shocking S-3 that they put out today after the market
close. I'm curious if they are trying to boost the price or just stop the
hemmorhage. The stock is down 25% from just a couple of weeks ago. The
astonishing lengths that McBride has gone to to show a profit this quarter, as
disclosed in the S-3, have to give one pause.
thad[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- And SCO forum - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 06:26 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:15 AM EST |
This is undoubtedly a rush job - they didn't even get around to rewriting the
press release properly from the last time - hence "future plans for this
investment"....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lpletch on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:07 AM EST |
Network Computing Asia has a very good article explaining the
GPL.
Rights received under the GPL cannot generally be taken away by
others. But they can be lost due to your own actions. If you attempt to copy,
modify, or distribute GPL software under different licencing terms, your GPL
granted rights are terminated. Unless you are the original copyright holder, you
may not reduce or add restrictions on any licencee.
When developing
your own applications, you will want to create appropriate policies and educate
your developers on how to maintain separation between open source and non-open
source components. One issue in the recent SCO vs IBM lawsuit might turn out to
be that their own developers mixed Unix code with Linux code. SCO's subsequent
distribution could then have inadvertently caused the Unix code to be covered by
the GPL. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 06:02 AM EST |
It's not necessarily improper to do stupid press releases, but it does give a
hint as to what is going on.
1. Look at the times
SCO Invites You to Participate in a Teleconference With: David Boies, Managing
Partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
Mon 10:28pm - PR Newswire
The SCO Group Invites You to Watch the cdXpo Keynote Webcast Of
Mon 9:41pm - PR Newswire
Both a way late in the evening
It's not difficult to imagine these guys trying to figure out why the stock is
going down (Is it the lawyers deal? Is it Darl not being loud enough?). And
brain storming these two gems.
While it's not proof, if they were pre-prepared, to do would expect:
(a) Probably, the press releases probably to be in the morning, before market
opens.
(b) Probably better writing in the press releases
(c) More notice on the press release (not the night before the events) in a
rushed homework style
(d) The two press releases to come within a short time of each other, not an
hour apart.
I think (d) is the strongest evidence, as if they had been pre-prepared they
would simply hit "Go" and the press releases would come out minutes
apart.
2. Look at the duplication
The cdxpo has already been the subject of a previous press release (Nov 5,
8:32am).
If they had done this "right" (i.e. normal), they would have issued
only one press release sometime between Nov 5 and Nov 18. It's not like they
needed two, including one incredibly last minute one. The only really
justifiable reason for the 2nd press release is really the URL of the web cast.
They could have squeezed that in, if they planned it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 06:04 AM EST |
If anybody is called to ask a question in the next few opportunities could you
ask
"If SCO Group really does respect IP and is fighting for IP, would Darl
please take the opportunity here and now to apologize to Jay Schulist for trying
to claim that Jay Schulist's code belongs to SCO Group?"
"Would Darl also like to apologize to all those who were shown Jay
Schulist's code under the NDA and were misled & lied to as to the real
owner of that code?"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inc_x on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 06:04 AM EST |
So to reiterate, when the stock sinks to $8.46 SCO is
dead? Interesting... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO Teleconference Today -- Boies, McBride and Bench On Expanded Legal Agreement, $$$, and Plans - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 06:30 AM EST
- SCO Teleconference Today -- Boies, McBride and Bench On Expanded Legal Agreement, $$$, and Plans - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:48 AM EST
- SCO Teleconference Today -- Boies, McBride and Bench On Expanded Legal Agreement, $$$, and Plans - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:48 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 06:26 AM EST |
Doesn't this seem like kinda short notice? They put out a
press release at 10:28 PM on Monday, calling a teleconference for Tuesday at
11:30 AM. You don't suppose they saw people noticed their SEC filing, do
you?
... or perhaps it's a response to a mid-month
Monday-morning drop of over a dollar a share in lieu of yet another PR release?
(#include huge_freaking_grin.h)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 06:51 AM EST |
Looking over some of the other posts, it's not at all implausible to me (but
hey I probably don't know what I'm talking about), that there could be a major
slide in the SCO stock price today.
I also wonder if IBM will make any interesting new filings today. The fact it
might coincide with Darl's long announced cdxpo speech - that would just be a
coincidence of course :-)
With a bit of luck, cdxpo could be fun![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 07:17 AM EST |
Remember the GrokLaw posting by PJ on August 30, 2003 quoting the Miami-Herald ?
"The post-Enron world has given rise to a trendy legal specialty: the
defense of companies accused of suspect accounting and insider self-dealing. At
the top of the field is hot-shot New York attorney David Boies..."
The present song and dance concerns cementing the legal defense of SCOG
officials after this thing blows up. The one million in cash plus whatever
Boies, Schiller & Flexner has already received is for the inevitable civil
and possible criminal charges looming on the horizen.
The time for pump and dump is past. SCO called IBM's hand and lost. There
ain't gonna be a buyout. Regardless of what we hear at this press conference,
it's start to cover your ass time. In the good old US of A, the perception that
justice may be freely purchased is the reality.
---
"If people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to
be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to
be sent up." --- Rush Limbaugh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 07:29 AM EST |
Since they are entitled to a speedy trial, should they be entitled as well to a
speedy conference? After all their stock is approaching a slippery sloap :))[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: freeio on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 07:55 AM EST |
It would appear that SCOX has minted enough fresh stock to spook the market.
The dilution has been so rapid that the market confidence is eroding due to the
most basic of fundamentals.
The parallel is that of the Weimar Republic, which printed money and inflated
itself to death. The photos of people carrying piles of million mark notes to
buy a loaf of bread come to mind here. This is not a pretty thought, but the
reality of that low strike price being the trigger for massive conversion of
debt to equity, and the very real possibility of going through that number by
next week some time, looks ominous. The very thought of dumping 3.5M shares
into a falling SCOX market is frightening to real investors.
---
73 de w4ti[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:02 AM EST |
| More information on the MS patents are here.
""I
don't think the alarm is justified," the FSF's pro bono counsel Eben Moglen told
us last night. "This is not a license that I would like to accept; Microsoft is
saying we might have some patents. But it's not a problem if Microsoft is making
it available to everyone to make use and sell."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:11 AM EST |
Referring to old stuff from last week, but might have something to do with
Digio...
http://www.jeaninemarie.com/ReplayExternal/company/pressreleases/pressr061201.ht
m
you know..."And he found out that the sixth entity on SCO's subpoena list
is Digeo, maker of Linux-based TV set-top boxes"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:12 AM EST |
My but they've been busy in Lindon!
Link to Yahoo press
releases[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:13 AM EST |
Suppose that IBM filed a serious nuke yesterday.
For that matter, suppose the Court broke silence?
SCO and Boies, Schiller would have received hand copies yesterday, which would
match the timing perfectly. I wonder if they're trying to prespin some
disastrous news?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:26 AM EST |
You know, I wish IBM would just start saving up little news nuggets that they
could drop after each SCO media grab. Imagine how it would make SCO look if
nearly every time they made a flashy show for the media, IBM would just gun it
down with a cold, emotionless statement of fact. Sometimes I wonder if IBM is
fighting the right battle.
Maybe if IBM would attack in the area SCO is most concerned with (investor's
confidence) it would slow the damage this FUD is causing and shorten the overall
war. Investor confidence in SCO's case is, after all, the only thing actually
keeping SCO alive.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:29 AM EST |
SCO is saying that Novell's planned purchase of SuSE Linux violates a
non-compete agreement.
From
SCO CEO:
Novell-SuSE breaks SCO contract
Planned acquisition violates non-compete
agreement and could lead to legal action against Novell
The
non-compete agreement prohibits Novell from directly competing with SCO's
Unix-on-Intel business, McBride said. "When (The Santa Cruz Operation) sold us
the property, included in the property was a non-compete," he said. "Last time I
checked, Linux was intended to compete with our core products."
I would have interpreted the phrase "directly competing" to
mean UNIX against UNIX. Of course, the exact phrasing may clear that up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:32 AM EST |
From the new press release. "Boies, Schiller & Flexner is now moving
beyond the contract issues we have with IBM."
If Boies etc weren't already covering general claims of Unix code into Linux
(instead of just IBM contract stuff as SCO suggest), what the hell were they
doing up on stage at the SCO Forum talking about *that proof*. After all, as we
were told afterwards this wasn't supposed to be evidence of what IBM gave to
Llinux, but just examples of general copying... So Boies etc have already been
doing the job they have just been announced as doing...
Also, any ideas why SCO are suddenly dragging the BSD Inc case into this:
"The firm will be enforcing and defending SCO's intellectual property
rights, including the protection of our UNIX System V source code and our
copyrights that were reaffirmed as a result of the BSDI settlement
agreement." Surely this can only be bad for them?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:35 AM EST |
Darl seems to be moving those armies around that nobody else can see, from his
bunker, again.
New Front 1:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/18/HNscoceo_1.html
LAS VEGAS -- Novell Inc.'s $210 million planned acquisition of SuSE Linux AG
will put it in violation of a non-compete agreement the networking vendor has
with The SCO Group Inc., and could possibly lead to legal action, SCO CEO Darl
McBride said Monday in an interview.
...
The non-compete agreement was only one of several legal avenues that SCO is
considering, should the SuSE acquisition be competed. according to McBride. SCO
also believes that Novell does not have the right to distribute Linux, which SCO
alleges to contain intellectual property that has been derived and copied
directly from its Unix System V code, he said.
Novell greatly enhanced its legal risks "by getting into this Linux
game," McBride said.
...
SCO is now waiting for the SuSE acquisition to be completed before it engages in
any legal action, McBride said. "Once the deal is done, the non-compete
can be invoked at that point."
New Front 2:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031118/latu082_1.html
As part of the expanded scope, the firm has been engaged to support SCO
regarding issues relating to copyrighted UNIX code incorporated into Linux
without authorization or appropriate copyright notices. Code that has been
identified includes Unix System V code as well as copyrighted code included in
the 1994 settlement between Unix Systems Laboratories, Inc. and Berkeley
Software Design, Inc. SCO acquired this code and associated copyrights in 1995
from Novell.
...
The firm will be enforcing and defending SCO's intellectual property rights,
including the protection of our UNIX System V source code and our copyrights
that were reaffirmed as a result of the BSDI settlement agreement."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: p0ssum on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:41 AM EST |
Can anyone see if there were any new filings yesterday in either case.
What if IBM or Redhat dropped a bomb on SCO yesterday, between that and the S3
filing, they might be trying to attempt some serious damage control. It should
be an interesting listen, but Im very interested in whether or not anything was
filed on the legal front yesterday.
---
If you are not the lead dog, the scenery never changes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:50 AM EST |
Anyone notice in the press release earlier,
"copyrighted UNIX code incorporated into Linux without authorization or
appropriate copyright notices. "
so they are going for the no copyright notices. They better check their code
base to make sure any IBM copyright code has the IBM copyright otherwise this is
going to fire right back. Secondly, surely a judge will say
"Did you tell the people there was a copyright notice missing?"
SCO : "Yes"
Judge:"Did you tell them where it should be?"
SCO : "No"
Judge: "So you dont want them to put it in?"
SCO : "No, otherwise we couldnt sue them"
Judge: "You didnt take appropriate action to remedy the situation.
Goodbye"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:51 AM EST |
Wait a minute, you mean the law firm of Boies, Satan and Hitler (or whatever)
has agreed to accept STOCK as partial compensation?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It must be an attempt to make it look like they actually believe SCO's BS.
(and that don't stand for Blake Stowell!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Downing on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:14 AM EST |
Just read the 'new' press release in re the teleconference. I note that it
says
SCO will discuss its full results of operations for its fourth
quarter and fiscal year ended October 31, 2003, in a conference call on December
8, 2003.
Didn't they reschedule this to Dec 3 or some
such?
---
Thomas Downing
Principal Member Technical Staff
IPC
Information Systems, Inc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:34 AM EST |
I think they will announce that they plan to sue someone, and that Boies is
going to be the hitman ....
""By far the most important asset of this company is our ownership
of the UNIX operating system and today we are investing in the protection and
future of UNIX. Boies, Schiller & Flexner is now moving beyond the contract
issues we have with IBM. The firm will be enforcing and defending SCO's
intellectual property rights, including the protection of our UNIX System V
source code and our copyrights that were reaffirmed as a result of the BSDI
settlement agreement.""
"moving beyond the contract issues" .... "including the
protection ofour copyrights "
And when they do, the will find that USC-17 is not exactly the weapon they think
it is. It requires you to prove you have a copyright, and then to show exactly
what infringes what, and that there are no legal sources for the supposedly
infringing matter.
Here's the best explanation I have seen of the issue, from the Yahoo stock
board for SCO:
by: nittfagm821 10/07/03 07:49 pm
Msg: 50005 of 50037
Think of it this way.
Consider Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The story is as old as the hills; it
was an oral tradition that predated even the Brothers Grimm, and there were many
cultural adaptations that had different details and characters but were
functionally the same story. See e.g.
http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~kvander/white4.html
So then this Disney guy makes a movie version, and makes a bunch of money with
it. Disney makes a pile of adaptations of his own to fit the story to the movie
paradigm, and the result is of course copyrighted.
Now, later on, others make Snow White clones, e.g.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000069HPG
These have all sorts of similarities to the Disney movie. Some dumb babe falling
for the poison-comb trick and not learning her lesson and falling for the
poison-apple trick. A bunch of obsequious little runts hiding her away in their
cabin in exchange for (as far as anyone lets on) housecleaning services. All
that stuff.
Sure, there are differences, but the function of the story is the same, and
there's even some identical dialog: "Mirror, mirror upon the
wall..." Hey, what are the chances of *that* happening, huh?
So now does Disney sue? Of course not. As greedy and litigious as they are,
Disney *isn't stupid*. They know full well where all those story elements and
dialog came from -- they came from the same place that Disney got them. As long
as the clone doesn't use any of Disney's pictures, and dances around Disney's
own adaptations, Disney's going to leave them alone, because even Disney knows
that the whole exercise would be one gigantic waste of time, effort and money.
SCOX's sort of in the same position here, except it's like they now own Snow
White the Disney movie but nobody who ever had anything to do with the making of
Snow White the Disney movie works for them, and the people in charge are too
effing illiterate to know that Snow White the story could almost be used as a
definition of the term "public domain"; they just think that they
own "Snow White".
SCOX longs [e.g.buyers of the stock -TDN] appear to me to be people who are
every bit as illiterate and ignorant as SCOX itself. They seem to think that
because Snow White the Disney movie has existed for their entire lives,
everything else that contains "Mirror, mirror on the wall" must be a
rip-off. They see the Snow White story posted all over the 'net -- the quoted
term "Snow White" turns up over a million hits on Google, and
that's just in English -- they see it in bookstores and on kids' backpacks and
on cartoon shows and on dollar store toys for chrissake, and before long they
feel like they can't turn around without seeing it. They think that SCOX is
going to take the rest of the world to the cleaners, and only a fool would sit
on the sidelines without buying into this.
If wishes were horses...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:02 AM EST |
| The Indemnity issue is coming again to the forefront with this article, JBoss to indemnify
customers. Recall that JBOSS, is also
attacking the Apache Software Foundation for similarities is their Java
code.
This might be another IP attack of the open source model, but its most
confusing. JBOSS uses the LGPL license, and the Apache group uses the Apache
license, both open source. I would have thought that they would be compatable.
But it seems there are issues. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:24 AM EST |
Q: SCO is claiming that GPL licence is invalid. Despite this fact SCO is still
distributing software which is published under GPL license.
If the GPL license is invalid as SCO says, ordinary copyright of each owner of
that software applies. Did you get approval from those copyright owners to
distribute their code? Under what license do you distribute their software?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: beast on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:04 PM EST |
This time before they (allegedly) are going to damaged.
From the
Infoworld
article:
SCO is now waiting for the SuSE acquisition to be completed
before it engages in any legal action, McBride said. "Once the deal is done, the
non-compete can be invoked at that point."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:01 PM EST |
Perhaps someone should mention the SCOX report card?
Here's some analysis wherein they give SCOX some of the worst ratings possible
(a 1, where 10 is highest), showing it to have maximum risk and low reward.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/srs/srsmain.asp?Symbol=SCOX
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/srs/transparency.asp?Symbol=SCOX
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:41 PM EST |
| The Register Chimes
in with some pithy comments about what they think of recent manuvers by the
SCOflaws of Lindon. The article includes a link back to GrokLaw
:-). ---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
