|
|
| Advance Peek at Teleconference and SCO May Sue Novell |
 |
|
Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:37 AM EST
|
SCO is threatening Novell now, over the planned acquisition of SuSE, which they say violates a non-compete agreement SCO inherited. And here's an advance peek at what they will be saying at the teleconference. Go here and here and here.
What stands out is this chunk from their press release about what Boies' firm is hired to do: "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. . . .
"'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.'" Catch that? ". . .our UNIX System V source code and our copyrights that were reaffirmed as a result of the BSDI settlement agreement." "without authorization or appropriate copyright notices". As for money, here is one snip from TheStreet's coverage: "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. "Using the money from the note sale, SCO has agreed to pay Boies' firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, and other lawyers $1 million cash and 400,000 SCO shares. The company will take a charge of $8.96 million in the fourth quarter, comprising a noncash expense of $7,956,000 related to the cash and stock transfer. The company will expense another $8.7 million to cover the coversion premium on the note sale itself." Hopefully your heart can take all this excitement. Here's another lawsuit threat from McBride, this time against Novell for the SuSE deal: "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 is part of a broader agreement signed between Novell and The Santa Cruz Operation Inc. when Novell sold the rights to its Unix System V software in 1995, McBride said.
"The SCO Group (formerly Caldera Systems Inc.) inherited the non-compete agreement, along with the Unix rights, when it acquired Santa Cruz Operation's Unix business in 2000, McBride said.
"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.' . . .
"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." Evidently, if you pay a lawyer a million and some shares, you get lawsuits out your nose.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:56 AM EST |
"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.'"
Hmm. The settlement with BSDI was sealed. As far as I recall, BSD was declared
'Free and clear' of any infringing code since 4.4 and it's had it's day in
court. The statement above is almost nonsensical.
Is _anyone_ using System V code these days? This looks like media fluff.
Draconis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:58 AM EST |
Read the quote carefully: (press release)
"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. "
They know they have rights to use BSD code.
They somehow thinks that means they have the ONLY rights to the BSD code. At
least that appears to be what they are saying.
Whether they truly believe that, OR are looking for a new legal stretch to keep
their case open, OR are raving with the intent to keep the stock high - is
currently unknown.
I do find it a little hard to believe they really believe what they seem to be
saying. Even a cursory review of the BSD case and results, should disavow them
of the notion that they own the BSD code.
Perhaps Heise's method of incredibly stretching Liu v PriceWaterhouse (as
discussed extensively on GROKLAW previously), some how makes them think they own
BSD.
- Above is largely a repost of something I said in previous story.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John Douglas on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:08 AM EST |
SCO has just printed a lot of new shares to pay for legal costs which dilutes
the value of existing shares (nose-diving anyway). If the shares drop below a
certain amount, Baystar's safety net cuts in costing SCO a lot of money.
By expanding the lawsuits, the size of the end prize is bigger and SCO hopes the
share price will rise. I think the press conference today with be FUD
disseminating that message (I wonder what value they will ascribe to the damages
now? ).
Who and how they will attack on the copyright issue is unclear (possibly, as
suggested elsewhere in GROKLAW, anyone who will pay them to go away). Possibly
they are seeking to drag out the IBM case further.
Of course their arguement to dismiss on the RH case about excessive cost of
duplicate litigation is undermined further. Certainly there must be an issue
with RH if SCO are claiming they own code that RH is giving away.
---
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: be2weenthelines on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:10 AM EST |
Or go see the press release on fiaSCO's own web site:
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=122952
They're back to some of their old tricks:
"By far the most important asset of this company is our ownership of the
UNIX operating system..." -Darl McBride
And they don't seem to remember that they moved their Q4 earnings call to Dec
3:
"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."
Plus, I think, this is the first time I have ever heard a company give
"guidance" for a quarter 18 days *after* it ended!
"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."
be2
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Grim Reaper on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:12 AM EST |
Hmm...So basically, SCO is gearing up to retry the USL v. BSDI case, but this
time against IBM.
I though part of the USL v. BSDI settlement was that USL agreed BSD (starting
with BSD 4.3 Lite?) was clear and free and that neither they, nor their
successors in interest would reopen that can of worms.
Am I mistaken?
I don't think SCO has either the resources nor clean enough hands to win this
little misadventure of theirs
---
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10); R.I.P. -
SCO Group, 2005/08/29[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:15 AM EST |
Hey Novell, if you're reading, and if you're planning a law suit again SCO
Get McBride today on tape, preferably saying he's going to sue you over alleged
the non-compete agreement. That plus the Bob McMillan article filled with
McBride quotes, could be a good starting point for a declarative judgement that
you have not violated any such non-compete.
IANAL, so consult yours, as I'm sure you will.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:19 AM EST |
since suse is a german company couldnt novell file suit from germany against sco
and then sco couldnt wiggle and stretch the case like they are now?
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:23 AM EST |
our copyrights that were reaffirmed as a result of the BSDI
settlement agreement
Those don't exist.
There were three files
that were declared as USL's property, and they were forced to licence those
under BSD's licence. Anything that was involved in the BSDI case is Free
Software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:23 AM EST |
"SCO acquired this code and associated copyrights in 1995 from
Novell."
Erm
Didn't Santa Cruz Operation acquire the code in 1995
Caldera acquired it from Santa Cruz Operation in 2000-2001, and then renamed
themselves SCO Group.
One for the SEC?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Another slip up - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:42 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:32 AM EST |
I was confused by the TSC article. Specifically, the lead paragraph
where it says:
The Lindon, Utah, company on Tuesday laid out the
terms of a big pay package it
is granting to the firm of
attorney-for-all-seasons David Boies to lead its
efforts to defend the company's
patent portfolio, which it believes gives it a
stake in the Linux operating
system.
I wasn't aware that SCO owned a "patent portfolio" and
certainly not any patents relevant to its suit against IBM. On the contrary, IBM
is suing them for patent infringement.
Where are journalists getting this idea
that SCO has a "patent portfolio?" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DrStupid on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:40 AM EST |
I just have to pass on a funny quote from the Yahoo boards, courtesy of
'radicimo':
"Wouldn't Novell/SuSE have to change their core business to filing
lawsuits to compete with the SCO Group?"
:)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Non-compete - Authored by: radicimo on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:00 AM EST
- Non-compete - Authored by: Dave on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:14 AM EST
- Non-compete - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:28 AM EST
- stock spread - Authored by: radicimo on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:05 PM EST
- stock spread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:41 PM EST
- stock spread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:44 PM EST
- Non-compete - Authored by: radicimo on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:59 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Downing on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:48 AM EST |
| This is a bit off-topic, but I came across this while poking around SCO's
new-look web site. (Incidentally, it's fun to note that the new SCO home page
has the Deloitte Fast 500 blurb as top billing, followed by Darl's notorious
'Open Letter' in second.)
Back to what I was posting - go to the Press
Release page, the top story is the 'City-to-City' tour, which is long since
over. But that's still not it.
SCO still has up a press release from Jan
13, 'SCO to Deliver Linux-based Solutions with HP'. I thounght that would be
fun to look at, and find out what happened. What SCO was talking about was a
Point-of-Sale system to be offered by HP using SCO Linux.
On June 9th, HP
announced the release of their first (and I believe only) open standards based
POS system. Sounds like a good match of the SCO release, and a good match for
Linux, right? As it turns out, the HP system is available only with Windows
2000, Windows XP Embedded, and Windows XP Professional. No Linux of any
flavor.
What makes this interesting to me is that SCO's main revenue
stream (not counting investments and questionable licenses, i.e., revenue based
on products) is from POS systems. I wonder what HP might have to say
about what happened to the SCO relationship vis-a-vis POS
systems? ---
Thomas Downing
Principal Member Technical Staff
IPC Information Systems, Inc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ribaucourt@work on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:00 AM EST |
Dear all,
the time has come to face the facts. Darl is God, and will reveal himself to the
world in the coming teleconference. He will then decree that he owns everything,
including the thoughts of every technology guy that has every lived, and the
ones still to be born. We will therefore need to bow to Darl and his utter
wisdom, and accept what can only be accepted.
And now for real ... I think we need to look into possible areas of legal action
on other fronts. The German courts is one idea, how about getting EC involved in
this?
Just a suggestion.
Rgds - B[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:02 AM EST |
Any claim SCO would have against Novell would have to be predicated on SCO's
assertion that Linux infringes on Unix.
In section 1.6 of the purchase agreement, buyer agrees to license the assets
back to vendor on condition that those assets not be used to compete with
buyer's core business.
Elsewhere in the agreement (6.1 for example) the agreement explicitly mentions
the eventuality that vendor's core business may become directly competitive
with buyers's. But this clause relates to governance, and does not remotely
suggest that this eventuality would breach the contract.
Note that section 1.6 does imply that Novell is not, by virtue of this
agreement, blessed with an automatic exemption to SCO's infringement claims.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jamesw on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:02 AM EST |
Checking the Asset Purchase Agreement posted a few days ago:
1.6
... Buyer [old SCO] shall
execute a license agreement under which it
shall grant to Seller [Novell]a
royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide
license to (i) all of the technology
included in the Assets and (ii) all
derivatives of the technology
included in the Assets, including the "Eiger"
product release (such
licensed back technology to be referred to collectively as
"Licensed
Technology"). Seller agrees that it shall use the Licensed
Technology
only (i) for internal purposes without restriction or (ii) for
resale in
bundled or integrated products sold by Seller which are not
directly
competitive with the core products of Buyer and in which the
Licensed
Technology does not constitute a primary portion of the value of
the
total bundled or integrated product.
Now "Assets" includes
SVR4 and Unixware 2.0, which include BSD code (and the AT&T suit
confirmed that this code was allowed to be there).
SCO could argue that this
means that BSD code is part of "all of the technology included in the Assets",
and as such, is part of the "Licensed Technology". (Definitions in the contract
trump English, and SCO does have a Berkeley license to use the code, like
anyone else, and has legal authority to license anyone else).
But note that
the "Seller agrees" line doesn't allow for Novell getting rights to the Licensed
Technology any other way. However Novell got the code, it's covered by that line
if it was part of the Licensed Technology.
Under that theory, Novell agreed
not to sell products based on BSD code if that BSD code was in SVR4 or
Unixware 2.0, even if they aquired a license from somewhere
else.
Presumably, that would mean Novell couldn't bundle Sendmail with
SuSE, for example, or use SysV code in the Linux kernel even if it came via a
BSD and the official kernel.
(Although the section
continues:
The license agreement shall also provide Seller with an
unlimited royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide license to the Licensed Technology
upon the occurrence of a Change of Control of Buyer [old SCO] described
in Section 6.3(c) hereof...
6.3(c) is limited to a change of
control in the two years from the closing date.)
But IANAL, I haven't read
the whole agreement in that much detail, and we don't know what else the two
companies signed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Conjunction - Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:18 AM EST
- They might have a point under the contract - Authored by: phrostie on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:21 AM EST
- They might have a point under the contract - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:33 AM EST
- No way - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:33 AM EST
- No way - Authored by: jamesw on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:07 PM EST
- No way - Authored by: Rodrin on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:37 PM EST
- No way - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:09 PM EST
- No way - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:23 PM EST
- No way - Authored by: knutsondc on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:12 PM EST
- No way - Authored by: sjohnson on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 02:00 PM EST
- SCO threatened to sue Novell: declaratory judgment needed? - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:34 PM EST
- They might have a point under the contract - Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:03 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: mcornelio on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:10 AM EST |
Forgive me for posting such a useless comment, but, I find it amusing, in light
of the upcoming webcast that an anagram of "Darl McBride, SCO CEO"
is:
"Bold code scam crier."
Another anagram of the above phrase, that one might encourage a judge to do is:
"Come! Scold bad crier."
Yes, it's stupid, but interesting.
IANAComedian, really.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:11 AM EST |
| Evidently, if you pay a lawyer a million and some shares, you get lawsuits
out your nose. Wrong orifice, PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:11 AM EST |
It's like the shysters have some kind of mind control device.
Make
yourself an industry joke.
Drive away your customers.
De-value your own
stock.
Threaten suit after snowball-in-hell suit
SCO has founded
the "lawyer paying" business model.
Sounds like Novell should open
another battlefront and file for declaritive judgment. SCO is cannabalizing
itself rather nicely.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:23 AM EST |
The thing is, that a german company will think very
carefully about suing an US company. In germany SUSE helped
to stuff SCO's mouth, but the US-law seems, hmm, a bit
weired to the european eye once in a while. The idea of a
jury of non-professionals deciding about this whole mess -
oh my god :-(
The inability to force someone to put facts on the table or
to shut up is also not easy to understand. I am no
law-professional, but I can tell you that german companies
feel that suing american companies is a lot like a visit to
Las Vegas - full of surprises, very colorful and there is
only one thing for sure - you have to invest a lot of money
to stay in the game, on average you'll loose in the end.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:50 AM EST |
I'm tracking activity on SCOX, and it appears that the markets are not reacting
favorably on the SCO announcement. I'm wondering whether markets are starting
to understand that crying wolf too many times has an adverse effect. PJ, might
want to check 'The Register', which has a good article on SCO today, with a
very well deserved glowing reference to Groklaw.
Rgds - B[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:59 AM EST |
Why would SCO wait until AFTER Novell has acquired SuSE to sue on the grounds of
an anti-competitive agreement? (Apart from the usual dragging the case out for
as long as possible). Surely if it thought it had a case it could get an
injunction out to prevent the merger (and the competition) taking place.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:01 AM EST |
| Don't know if this is old news (well, it is, but perhaps not on Groklaw).
Deutsche Bank got censured over
HP-Compaq deal (The Inquirer).
Ken [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hugorune on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:04 AM EST |
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.
Doesn't this undermine their motion to dismiss
in the Red Hat case, since it would seem pretty clear from this statement that
Red Hat would have a reasonable aprehension of being sued from this
statement.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:23 AM EST |
Text of Darl's speech in advance?
<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Very well, where do I begin? My attorney was a relentlessly self-improving
constitutional lawyer from Florida with low-grade lawn furniture and a penchant
for hyperbole. My other lawyer was a fortyish-year-old class actionist named
Heise with parking law interests. My attorney would womanize, he would think, he
would make outrageous claims like he invented the dimpled chad. Sometimes he
would accuse CS and M of being lazy...the sort of general malaise that only the
genius possess and the Democrats lament...
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
Okay not exactly, but probably close enough
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 2nd time lucky: - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:24 AM EST
- Mass Hypnosis - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:37 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:24 AM EST |
Novell terminating SCO's UNIX license?
THEY would actually appear to have the right to do so ... (?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:36 AM EST |
"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."
Aside from the fact that GNU/Linux is "GNU is Not Unix" with a Linux
kernel. if Novell uses, Say AMD or PowerPC based hardware they would not be on
"Unix-on-Intel" or does AMD's work fall under that
"derivitive works" thing we keep hearing about.
WOW, i guess SCO owns all of AMD patents now too.
---
=====
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: zjimward on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:40 AM EST |
The bright side of this whole thing is that SCO can't possible afford all of
the sideline lawsuits. Of course, the other ironic aspect is that if they can't
cough up real evidience then they will be out of business because there will be
countersuits. For a company that wanted some one to buy them they are sure going
about it the wrong way. I thought in the past that it might have been
interesting to have IBM back a company like Red Hat or Novell by giving them the
money to buy SCO thus silencing this whole issue. Now the way it is going some
one will probably be awarded the company because it will be the only way to pay
the debit or they'll be able to pick SCO up for pennies.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:41 AM EST |
Did anyone comment their 8-k fillig?
I din't see it.
They are writing:
"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."
BSDI code is licensded under BSD licens isn't it?
Ore are they refering to the 4 files wich where USL and removed from BSDI unix?
Was System V derived from de USL or BSDI. Is SCO now copyright owner on BSD
license code of BSDI?
I frogot it... the unix history is such a mess...
They talk about "without appropriate copyright notices".
Does this refer to the "BSDI/USL" settelment en they saying
that linux contains BSD licensed code without the copyright notice?
Ciao
J
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:18 PM EST |
I cannot see anything in the 1995 Assett Purchase Agreement that says Novell
cannot compete with SCO.
Someone tell me if I am wrong here, or am I looking at the wrong document?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:19 PM EST |
well not as favorably as the other PR stunts.
past Press Conferences pushed it up $2.00+
at 0.40(12:18) it would seem that 3/4+ of investors have learned their lesson.
the day is not over.
---
=====
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: Clifton Hyatt on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:21 PM EST |
A.K.A. Next-Generation Secure Computing Base/Palladium/DRM.
Folks, this
should be read and spread by everyone that has a computer, a child, or a desire
to live in a free (as in speech) future.
In a widely publicized case,
MSN, the Microsoft Network, briefly refused to serve web pages to non-Microsoft
browsers. In the interim, users of competitive products were able to fool MSN
into thinking they were running Microsoft browsers. This would be impossible in
an environment of routine NGSCB-style remote attestations. By allowing a web
site to lock out disfavored software this way, these attestations would let
anyone with market power leverage that power to control our software
choices.
MS/RIAA/MPAA/B
SA plan
Longhorn
as the next Microsoft desktop domination play
MS to intro hardware-linked
security for AMD64, Itanium, future CPUs
NGSCB, aka Palladium, in
next generation of CPU, says Gates
Palladium
technology will be released with Longhorn.
...and a couple
suggesting (to me at least) the XBox as a DRM test bed/MS platform model,
complete with DMCA lawsutes for any
modifications/reverse-engineering.
Microsoft moves into chip
world with Xbox
Of TCPA,
Palladium and Wernher von Braun
All they need to do is hold Linux off
till the 2005, coincidently also the planed hearing of the SCO v. IBM case,
release of "Longhorn", the hardware part is happening already.
Trusted Computing Group
Homepage
Stealth plan puts
copy protection into every hard drive
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:21 PM EST |
<a
href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7266&mode=thread&
;order=0&thold=0">http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7266&
amp;mode=thread&order=0&thold=0</a>
<p>
McBride is claiming IBM knew about all the lawsuits since December, calling IBM
liars. They also say that SuSE is as good as dead.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:22 PM EST |
| http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7266&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0
McBride is claiming IBM knew about all the
lawsuits since December, calling IBM liars. They also say that SuSE is as good
as dead. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NZheretic on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:34 PM EST |
| Back in the late 80s, rumor has it that Microsoft sold off it's rights to the
XENIX source to old SCO ...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6onmmh%24mhj%241@nnrp1.dejanews.com
Microsoft has a permanent non-compete agreement with SCO that
prevents them from reentering the "UNIX Market" (Microsoft sold Xenix, and the
agreement forbids any UNIX variant including any OS that uses or includes UNIX
applications).
It may be Microsoft that must not
compete in the Unix market, not Novell! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:37 PM EST |
| See http://lwn.net/Articles/58915/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:38 PM EST |
PJ --
I think the most illuminating thing to everyone would be a transcript of the SCO
conference call that just happened. And go ahead and add in your play-by-play
comments. I mean, it would be a real eye opener to disect this into bits. There
were so many deceptive comments and 'misunderstandings' all over the call.
PS: I wish we could count on you to be a reporter and ask a very specific
question or two 'as the press' on a call like this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: radicimo on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:40 PM EST |
| Conference call just ended. I had a *1 for questions, but they just cut off the
conference before things got too hairy, with a "We have no more callers". LIARS.
Also, interesting how Dion Cornett was unable to ask his question. Makes me
wonder out loud.
1. They referred to SCOsource licensing as one of the
contingencies that created the payment for Boies (really cagey about it too).
However they also said that Microsoft in no way was funding the lawsuit. That is
a patently untrue then, as MSFT has funded the SCOsource licensing.
I think
this one is really important to note. IF there ever is a securities fraud
investigation of TSG, some of their comments in the call are patently
self-contradictory, and if I was "allowed" to ask my questions these would have
come out.
2. Still seems that there are no other licensees besides MSFT and
SUNW. I was going to force them to get specific about this and find out when Sun
payment will be recorded, and if there were any future contingencies which would
lead to additional payments by either.
3. I wanted Boies to explain how the
USL v. BSDI lawsuit gave them any legal standing. It doesn't, and seems to
weaken it (IANAL).
4. Compete versus non-compete wrt Novell. First UNIX is
not Linux, so how are they competing with the letter of the agreement? Second,
SCO legacy revenue is decreasing whereas this new partnership (word they used
again and again) with a law firm suggests that their core business is now
lawsuits. How is Novell competing with that (tongue in cheek)?
5. Has OSDL
contacted them about their use of the trademark UNIX, and why do they continue
to use this trademark without proper attribution?
The reason why SCO is able
to perpetrate the FUD they do is because the press and financial community are
not doing their research and asking the hardball questions. Things only got a
bit tight when they got called to task on the issue of Boies payment and whether
it was a contingency based on past or future actions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:49 PM EST |
so what if they have a non-compete with novell.
Novell just has to wait a few months, then SCO goes under and Novell's all
clear...
simple!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:10 PM EST |
I can't find a reference right now, but early on, McBride made some statement
that implied he intended to re-open the USL/BSD case.
Specifically, he said something like "BSD has not met their commitments
under the settlement". So I don't think the idea is to re-litigate the
case, but rather to get the settlement thrown out.
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:19 PM EST |
Did Novell retract the statement that SCO does not own the copyrights? See
Infoworld
for this quote:
"Even before SuSE entered the picture, Novell and
SCO had argued over the Unix System V sale. Last spring, Novell asserted that it
had retained Unix copyright and patents as part of the 1995 Asset Purchase
Agreement, but it backed off these claims when SCO produced a 1996 amendment
letter that appeared to support SCO's claims."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pfaut on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:20 PM EST |
I saw some comments regarding the conference call on Yahoo!'s SCOX message
board. SCO appears to have stated/implied that they will sue a linux end user
and the speculation is that it will be an HP customer since HP has offerred
indemnification. Early sentiment seems to be evenly divided: will HP or their
insurer offer a quick settlement or battle it out to avoid additional SCO
lawsuits?
I'm wondering if this is SCO's latest attempt to get bought out. This is
probably what they wanted in the first place but IBM didn't bite. They might
use an end-user lawsuit to put pressure on another company to buy them out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:25 PM EST |
If BSD code is the basis for any suit against Novell, expect a similar suit
against MS. In short, is any BSD code allegedly covered by the settlement any
more trivial in relation to GNU/Linux than it is WRT Windows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:31 PM EST |
From /.:
Question: How can SCO claim that they own Linux, and then turnaround
and say that Novell's version competes with theirs?
Answer: They can't!
Bunch of jackasses!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:36 PM EST |
Real simple, Linux is not Unix - The Open Group owns the term Unix and states
that Linux is not Unix.
The non-compete was against their Unix on Intel.
Seems cut and dry to me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:56 PM EST |
It's not clear to me that old SCO had the right to transfer the no-compete part
of section 1.6 of the Asset Purchase agreement.
Remember that Caldera did not buy old-SCO, they bought some ASSETS of old-SCO.
Now, what in the asset purchase agreement allows old-SCO to sell the no-compete
rights?
In other words, Novell may still be committed to not compete with Tarantella,
but have no obligation with regards to TSG.
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 01:56 PM EST |
As much as I hate the thought of the SCO folks weaseling away from this whole
thing, might not the best case for Linux be a Novell acquisition of SCOX and all
related assets? The ownership of SysV would come full circle and the whole
thing would simply fall off the map. Can Novell afford it?
-chris[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Best case? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:26 PM EST
- Best case - in detail - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:55 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 02:10 PM EST |
My reading of Real SCO and Novell agreement (PDF on Groklaw) showed an
expectation of competion between Real SCO and Novell, only limitation was Novell
was not to use retained Unix rights as primary part of competion with Real SCO.
GNU/Linux is clearly not SysV Unix. Is this just more smoke from SCOX to prop up
stock?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 02:15 PM EST |
I have a business meeting scheduled right at the moment when I had originally
planned to go and see the SCO roadshow in London. Would anybody care to take my
place. Contact me on salimfadhley@jabber.org (Jabber Instant Messenger
Required), or salimfadhley@yahoo.com (Via Yahoo IM only), if you are interested.
If you cannot use IM then just reply to this and I will attempt to contact
whoever seems to want it the most.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 02:19 PM EST |
Even assuming that the ATT/BSD outcome was interpreted
in the worst possible way (from the Linux's point of view),
isn't it true that SCO gave away virtually all of their proprietary
rights to that generation of code in their release of "ancient
code"
"fee free" and pretty much otherwise unencumbered license of
Jan 23, 2002 (Available at
<a
href="http://www.ffii.org/archive/mails/groff/2002/Dec/att-0027/01-ancient
-source-all.pdf">
http://www.ffii.org/archive/mails/groff/2002/Dec/att-0027/01-ancient-source-all.
pdf</a> and other places)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 02:25 PM EST |
I saw this on NewsForge:
http://www.newsforge.com/business/03/11/18/1742216.shtml?tid=2&tid=82&ti
d=85&tid=94
The short article ends with:
"Since they cannot show infringement of SCO Unix code, SCO now plans to
challenge the 9-year-old settlement between AT&T and BSD. If it can
successfully do that, then its claims that Linux contains tainted code can be
substantiated. If it can't, SCO is dead meat."
I don't understand this at all. If the article's author is
correct, IBM's alleged wrongdoing would be the result of a third party's
(BSD's) alleged actions. Wouldn't SCO have to sort out the BSD mess before
they could go after IBM? And even if their challenge of the BSD settlement was
successful, how would that make IBM guilty of any wrongdoing?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jlp on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 02:33 PM EST |
I was reading the comments about rob enderle and his open source scenario
regarding the death of innovation, but that was on my work computer and I cannot
find the post here at home.
Can any point me to the correct article on gorklaw
TIA
---
Argue for your limitations; And sure enough they are![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sjohnson on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:02 PM EST |
| A Townhall Meeting after Darl's Keynote will be broadcast as tonight's Linux
Show. The show will start at 5:45 Pacific Time. That's 15 minutes earlier
then it's usual start time. Checkout the announcement at http://www.thelinuxshow.com.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:19 PM EST |
Did the APA require Novell to stop developing or marketing their NetWare 6.5
Operating System? I have to confess I'm not familiar with the product, but
doesn't that compete with UNIX? The last time I looked it claimed to support
things like LDAP, Perl, Apache, MySQL, Postgres, PHP, Rsync, Tomcat, & etc.
I don't remember seeing UNIX listed among the Netware minimum system
requirements.
The non-compete clauses contained in section 1.6 and 4.16 of the 1995 APA are
strictly limited to the assets that SCO licensed-back to Novell. Neither Netware
nor Linux were among the assets SCO acquired from Novell, or among those they
licensed-back to them.
Under the agreement Novell could use "the technology" they received
under the license-back to compete against SCO. They just couldn't use it to
compete against SCO's "core business". Old SCO's "core
business" wasn't Linux. Both Linux and SuSE were around in 1995 and
neither are mentioned in the APA. New SCO's core business seems to be baseless
IP litagation.
Both Caldera and Old SCO dabbled in Unix, Unixware, ventures like the Linux
Mall, and their own Open Linux as seperate non-competing products and markets.
You could murder these SCO/Caldera/SCOG guys with their own press quotes
comparing Linux to UNIX. Their own attempts to license their libraries for use
with Linux underscore that the products have their own unique ABI's and
application software suites. Linux is simply not compatible with software
compiled expressly for either Open Server or Unixware. Are they saying Novell
agreed to stop development and marketing of their Netware line of products, or
leave the computer software business? Why for example can't Netware have a SuSE
Linux Kernel Personality under the terms of the 1995 APA?
They seem to be making the same old implied claim - that Linux contains
misappropriated SVRX code. This really is beginning to have antitrust
implications. It's time they put up some evidence in public or in the courts on
that score. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:56 PM EST |
| Looking at the chart here, I think today's been just a day of speculation rather than people
believing in SCO's "it's Press Release Day, so we must be good after all"
FUD-fest. Prices rose nearly a dollar, but they're coming back down now, right
now only 10cents up.
Given that this teleconference was probably in reaction
to yesterday's share price, it's a bit of a laugh, isn't it? :)
N.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rick stockton on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:37 PM EST |
If you let the lawyers ^H^H^H^H^H mermaid go, you can have a nice plate of
sausages. But be careful when your wife gets home!
---
Rick S[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:15 PM EST |
I have a question... it is referring to how the lawyers are paid by SCO/Caldera,
and how much inside information they have.
In SCO's case, The Bois lawyers have the firsthand information about the
company's triggers for stock movement, on the other hand, they are paid in
great part with a percentage of equity financing. The way they are using PR,
"suggest" (very obvious) that SCO's lawyers are helping pump the
price of the stock in the short-term. They are getting SCO into a deeper hole
everyday that goes by. This is exactly the kind of thing the SEC looks for in
executives, and supposedly a good enough reason to put them behind bars.
Can the SEC go after the lawyers who have inside information and are using it to
pump the stock price in the short term?
Thanks
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:39 PM EST |
All including me, are guilty of over interpreting what McBride said. We
look are looking for some kind of partial justification or rebuttal in the
APA.
Frankly we're all wrong.
Read what he actually said (for
example in one article, others are similar)
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."
As far as Darl is concerned, Novell is not supposed to be
offering anything which is intended to compete with SCO's core products,
regardless of whether the product includes any Sys V code.
(And yes I
know Novell already competes with SCO's product, via Netware, but according to
Darl's theory, that is something else Novell is doing wrong).
Remember
"intended to compete with SCO's core products" is a no-no for Novell -
according to McBride - regardless of what technology is in the code.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:39 PM EST |
All including me, are guilty of over interpreting what McBride said. We
look are looking for some kind of partial justification or rebuttal in the
APA.
Frankly we're all wrong.
Read what he actually said (for
example in one article, others are similar)
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."
As far as Darl is concerned, Novell is not supposed to be
offering anything which is intended to compete with SCO's core products,
regardless of whether the product includes any Sys V code.
(And yes I
know Novell already competes with SCO's product, via Netware, but according to
Darl's theory, that is something else Novell is doing wrong).
Remember
"intended to compete with SCO's core products" is a no-no for Novell -
according to McBride - regardless of what technology is in the code.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
