|
|
| SCO Earnings Release and Investor Conference Call Moved to Dec. 22 |
 |
|
Monday, December 08 2003 @ 07:58 AM EST
|
SCO has changed the date of its 2003 earnings release and invester conference call to December 22 at 9:00 AM. It was going to be today.
This naturally has people speculating why. Groklaw doesn't speculate, no pun intended. However, there is an article in Heise.de that a Groklaw reader has been kind enough to translate, and here is a relevant snip:
In a press release SCO Group announced it is moving its press-conference, concerning the balance of the third quarter, which was originally scheduled for the 8th of December to the 22nd of December. As a reason for this, the company cited an investment of $50 million USD, which has to be accounted for correctly. For doing this, they had to use the help of external experts, which delayed the quarterly statement.
Observers think that the delay and the use of external auditors is a sign that investors have doubts about the correct accounting of the financing by Baystar Capital and the Royal Bank of Canada. Especially the spending of $1 million USD plus stock with a value of $8 million USD to the lawyers Boies, Schiller & Flexner, which whom SCO Group intensified their partnership by means of this financial arrangement, which is to some is controversial.
In a first hearing in front of a court in the lawsuit against IBM, SCO was not represented by the star-lawyer-firm. Instead, Kevin McBride, the brother of SCO CEO Darl McBride, did the negotiations for the SCO Group. His 40-minutes-long speech asking the judge for more time and requesting IBM hand over 40 million lines of code did not persuade Judge Wells. Here is exactly what the press release from SCO says about the postponement, that it was: . . .in order for the Company to finalize the accounting treatment for its recent $50 million Series A Convertible Preferred Stock transaction. The Company is in the process of performing a valuation of the conversion feature associated with the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock. The Company will utilize the services of an outside advisor to assist the Company in its valuation of the conversion feature.
The accounting for the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock will not impact the Company's revenue or cash balance. The Company also reiterates that its revenue for the fourth quarter ended October 31, 2003 will be consistent with the Company's prior guidance of $22 million to $25 million.
"Upon the completion of the valuation and accounting for the conversion feature associated with the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, the Company will release its year-end financial results. I do hope the copyright police don't come and arrest me for quoting so much from their press release. You see, at the very bottom of the press release, there is this sentence: Copyright (C) 2003 PR Newswire. All rights reserved. I'm sorry to laugh, but isn't the purpose of a press release to get people to quote from your precious words to the max? There is something else I notice. Their press releases in the past usually had their PR firm's name on them as an alternate contact. This one lists Blake Stowell and a Kathy Martens, a SCO employee. Maybe PR firms don't like getting subpoenaed. Or maybe SCO is pinching pennies. It might explain why they aren't doing so well in the headlines department these days. Not that I'm complaining, mind you.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 08:22 AM EST |
I do hope the copyright police don't come and arrest me for
quoting so much from their press release. You see, at the very bottom of the
press release, there is this sentence: "Copyright (C) 2003 PR Newswire. All
rights reserved." "I'm sorry to laugh, but isn't the purpose of a press
release to get people to quote from your precious words to the
max?"
Urm.... Sorry PJ, they are using this copyright
thing to sue you since you are putting them in an unfavourable light!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmccorm on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 08:45 AM EST |
Theory:
You seem to indirectly propose the theory that Boies didn't show up because he
didn't get paid? Perhaps the same is true with the PR company?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: emmenjay on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 08:57 AM EST |
> "I'm sorry to laugh, but isn't the purpose of a press
> release to get people to quote from your precious words
> to the max?"
Copyrighting might serve two purposes.
- It would prevent you altering the piece.
- It would require you to attribute it, not claim it as your work.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 08:59 AM EST |
Check out
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&prev=/s
earch%3Fq%3Dscox%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3Dutf-8&q=stocks:SCOX+
The financial press is really in touch with events...BUT you get a picture of
Darl too!
</sarcasm>
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Forbes right on top of things.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 09:10 AM EST
- Forbes right on top of things.... - Authored by: Raoul_Duke on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 09:13 AM EST
- Forbes right on top of things.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 09:41 AM EST
- I am concerned - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 10:52 AM EST
- I am concerned - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 11:58 AM EST
- SCOX Stock - Authored by: markus on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 12:11 PM EST
- SCOX Stock - Authored by: rand on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 01:39 PM EST
- SCOX Stock - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 07:04 PM EST
- Forbes right on top of things.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 01:32 PM EST
- Forbes right on top of things.... - Authored by: D. on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 11:02 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 09:06 AM EST |
| Kathy Martens has been named as a
Cald
era spokesperson in the past.
She also appears in some SEC documents
submitted by Caldera/SCO, named as an investor contact.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: coffee17 on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 09:09 AM EST |
| I wonder what exactly they mean by consistent. Do they mean that their guidance
was correct, or that their guidance was "in the ball park" ?
I think that
they're killing their previous existing forms of income faster than they can get
SCO source income in to cook the books. I wouldn't be too surprised if they
were closer to 20.5 million, and while that would be low, it might still be
"consistent" with their guidance.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Consistent - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 07:07 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: miss_cleo_psy4u on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 09:17 AM EST |
The spirits say PR firms may not want to be conducting PR
compaigns while under scrutiny for client communications,
relationships, and 'the truth' in a court case.
Schwartz Communications has indeed been subpoenaed by IBM
(cf. document 85 which lists it as one of the companies receiving
Subpoenas Duces Tecum). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sela on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 09:17 AM EST |
IANAA (I am not an accountant), but is there any possible way for SCO not to
report the ~10m$ they paid Boies as an expense?
Even if their income guidance is correct, it looks like those 10m$ would sent
their earning down, far below the 0 line. The 50m$ are an investment, and cannot
be considered as an income. However, the 1 million dollars in cash + ~8 million
dollars in shares, are surely an expense ...
I smell trouble for SCO real soon now ...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pjcm on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 09:39 AM EST |
The Company is in the process of performing a valuation of the
conversion feature associated with the Series A Convertible Preferred
Stock (Emphasis added)
Can somebody confirm this but arn't
preffered shares the ones that can still get a slice of the pie even when
everything has gone belly up. They get prefference over ordinary shares (ie. the
ones normally traded)
If I was a share holder I would start to get
worried.
IANAL Paddy [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 09:48 AM EST |
From
LinuxWorld
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sphealey on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 10:02 AM EST |
in order for the Company to finalize the accounting treatment for
its recent $50 million Series A Convertible Preferred Stock transaction. The
Company is in the process of performing a valuation of the conversion feature
associated with the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock. The Company will
utilize the services of an outside advisor to assist the Company in its
valuation of the conversion feature. One would think,
particuarly in these days of Sarbannes-Oxley, that a publicly-held corporation
would obtain a binding ruling from its auditor on the proper accounting for such
a critical financial transaction prior to signing said transaction.sPh [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 11:14 AM EST |
It happened again: SCOX closed at 16.59 Friday, and over the weekend it drifted
down and opened at 16.00 this morning. In the first 15 minutes of trading,
about 25,000 shares changed hands and the price shot up to 16.30
If the pattern holds true, it'll stay near 16.30 for the rest of the day,
despite all the news of Friday's SCO setback now hitting the mainstream press.
It's amazing that so many recent trading days have found people wanting to buy
SCOX the minute the market opens.
Another Groklaw poster said it looked like somebody was "Painting the
tape", which is an illegal practice involving trades made specifically to
manipulate the stock price.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 12:05 PM EST |
Where is the news coverage of Friday's decision by Judge Wells? There is lots
of noise out there about SCO's moving their conference call, but outside of
Groklaw and Linux news outlets I have seen nothing about SCO being forced to
answer IBM's questions.
But then again, as I write this (noon Monday) I note that the stock has dropped
over a buck a share so far today, so maybe Wall Street is reading Groklaw?
Neat.
Grok on, PJ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 12:07 PM EST |
| Here in ML
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmr on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 12:13 PM EST |
Someone is getting finally a clue...
After going almost flat all friday and until 30 minutes or so, SCOX is currently
falling 6.5% to $15.5
Don't call it a panic yet as the volume is fairly low (except one transaction
of 70k shares, probably a sell, in the friday after hours), and it's still
better than the $13.8 they reached in mid november.
So all in all, and to the light of the real *facts* we all know about, I find
surprising how much their shareholders support the company.
My impression was always all the stuff SCOG wants is really about buyout or, if
that fails, stock pumping. All the suit and all it's just noise to get their
objectives. They can't care less about winning the suit or getting the infamous
GNU/Linux kernel fee.
The stock falling can be the *only* thing it's really to damage them (I mean
Darl, Canopy, Boies et all).
So... cheers to the falling!
jmr[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCOX - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 01:07 PM EST
- SCOX - Authored by: jmr on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 01:41 PM EST
- SCOX - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 01:54 PM EST
- SCOX - Authored by: mitphd on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 02:06 PM EST
- SCOX - Authored by: SteveS on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:50 AM EST
- SCOX - Authored by: Ruidh on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 02:13 PM EST
- SCOX - Authored by: jmr on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 02:33 PM EST
- SCOX - Authored by: mitphd on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 02:33 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: stdsoft on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 12:16 PM EST |
One hypothesis is that the press release is just a cover for the real reason
earnings are delayed. After all, KPMG had already approved accounting for the
PIPE deal before the deal was completed.
Do you find it curious that, with Q4-03 complete by more than a month SCO still
provides revenue guidance in a range from $22MM to $25MM? SCO was expecting the
final payment from Sun of $2.5MM in November. In accordance with SCO stated
accounting procedures (see any 10-Q), SCO cannot account for this revenue until
receipt of payment. Here is what I think is going on:
Darl asked the CFO to "engineer" the Q1-04 Sun revenue recognition
into Q4-03. When the Q4 financials were passed by the BoD Audit Committee, Dan
Campbell said no way. Darl persisted and then Dan suggested a compromise
whereby an outside firm is asked for a second opinion.
Just a hypothesis, nothing more. It would sure explain the outside firm, the
delay and the revenue range.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nealywilly on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 01:41 PM EST |
IAAF/AP (I am a Finance/Accounting Person - Had to change it from
"Guy" for obvious reasons)
I managed the financial reporting of a Fortune 500 company as recently as 2000
and I have accounted for similar transactions (as well as been involved with
structuring the financing) and there is no big mystery to solve in how to
account for these things, especially this late after the accounting close (which
was Oct-31).
Not only do the public auditors already have canned tools for this
(spreadsheets, proprietary models, accounting policy and standards), SCO grants
enough employee options to have the third-part software required to manage their
program, and these providers also can value other type of options - that's part
of the services they provide. Finally, BayStar or any securities firm they
consult or otherwise work with could crank out proper valuations pretty much
while you wait. Heck, when I was just a senior analyst/accountant I developed a
spreadsheet model to something similar and the auditors accepted my approach
(which was faithful to well-known option models). It can be approximated
reasonably using a Bloomberg terminal/PC or referring to Black-Scholes option
valuation/pricing model.
Having said all that, I think the valuation/accouting aspect is so clear cut
that it is probably not the real reason for the delay. Although the public
auditors may have refused to sign off on the way SCO wanted to record or report
the transaction, my bet is that the auditors did not like something else SCO was
doing with the numbers.
Accounting is not an exact science and reasonable estimation is not only
acceptable, but often necessary. I think SCO tried to stretch/break the limits
of "reasonable" and their auditors said "No way, but you're
welcome to a second opinion".
Personally, I think SCO either wanted to avoid the immediate scrutiny they
anticipated Friday's loss would bring (i.e., expected to need more spin-prep)
and/or they have an issue with earnings that make drop their pro-forma
(excluding extraordinary/one-time charges) numbers fall below the expectations
of concensus estimates (or at least Skiba). If I had to guess there is probably
an issue over some costs they believed they could spread out that they found out
they have to expense now and they can't get away with excluding from their pro
forma (i.e., bereft of major non-recurring items) earnings. They are working on
their spin, while they look for alternatives.
As a prediction, they will announce their new litigation along with or just
before the call and they are probably pulling out all the stops to get anyone
who will pay even a penny for a license just so they can say they their FUD is
working.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobh on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 02:07 PM EST |
| The act of going out to get another opinion on how to account for the
transaction indicates that at least some members of the Board of Directors are
concerned that the proposed accounting treatment might expose them to personal
financial risk in the form of shareholder suits, or possibly even criminal
penalties should the treatment later be deemed some sort of Enron-like
shenanigan. There's a lot of worry about that these days.
There was a tiny
item buried in a news story when this deal was first announced, suggesting that
part of the transaction involved a swap of some kind that would result in
recognizeable revenue and profit to SCO in the quarter... something that would
not normally come out of a stock sale. That could be the item in question; we
don't really know. But we know there is something, because getting a
second opinion, and delaying the earnings announcement to get it, indicates a
serious desire on the part of the Board to have a piece of paper in the drawer
that covers their butts over how this was done.
Here's my guess, and I
emphasize that this is a guess. Darl & Co. structured the deal in such a way
that the revenue and profit objectives that Darl must meet to get his options
were satisfied. KPMG went along with this treatment, but someone on the board
balked. That someone (and there may be more than one) is insisting that the
Board hire an accountant other than management's to take a look at this deal and
bless it.
Now the fun begins. Without the revenue from the extraordinarily
clever stock transaction, Darl doesn't have his revenue or profit numbers, and
in fact the company is staring at reporting a loss. His bonus, and in fact the
whole house of cards, depends on that second accounting firm going along with
the treatment Darl favors. I suspect this is where they are now.
They may
well get such a blessing. KPMG is no slouch, and they saw what happened to
Arthur Andersen. So they didn't bless anything they didn't think they could
defend.
On the other hand, everybody saw what happened to Arthur
Andersen, and people are being a lot more careful these days about slippery
slopes. The next firm may well not be willing to go along with the proposed
accounting treatment. If that happens, the ears are going to perk up all around
the boardroom, because nobody wants to be the next Kenneth Lay. They'll be
sitting there trying to decide between risking jail, or reporting near-zero
revenue for the quarter and a huge loss... totally out of line with their recent
guidance. Putting boards in this spot is how CEOs get fired.
To guess what
might happen next, assume that the Board's independent accountant comes back and
says it's OK to go ahead with the treatment advocated by Darl and blessed by
KPMG. (If that does not happen, you can probably paint the fright
scenario yourself). So they go ahead and hold their conference call, and
announce revenue and earnings at least somewhat in line with projections. I
don't expect the computer-trade journalists to pick up on anything, but a sharp
financial type would notice that these are not operating results, but a one-time
finger-in-the-dike that almost screams 'manipulation'. And that's true even if
the accountants all say it's allowable. It's still not an operating result, it's
a stunt meant to paper over a horrible quarter.
In the good old days, an
outfit like Forbes would see that and run to the barricades, warning its
readers that this outfit has just papered over a sizeable operating loss, and
they probably can't do it again. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: KBellve on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 02:23 PM EST |
I find it wierd that the stock was extremely flat on Friday on the day of the
hearing.
This tells me that whoever might be manipulating the stock put it on hold and
paid attention to the court case.
This would be a flag that someone is doing something illegal to keep the stock
high.
How could someone manipulate a stock? I assume you can't constantly buy and
sell. What you could do is buy in large chunks to drive the price up, then
slowly sell off what you buy. But, this is risky. Perhaps selling and buying to
yourself or another partner? This wouldn't be as expensive, nor as risky. If
someone elses buy at that price, you are off the hook, or you just buy it
back...just pay the brokerage fees.
Can you find out who is buying or selling stock?
Also, about the delayed report. My guess is the current accounting firm didn't
want to sign on to something that SCO wants to report. They went to get a second
opinion. However, ever since Enron, I bet accounting firms don't want to suffer
the same fate as Andersen and will not sign or approve a fishing report.
All my opinion and I am most likely dead wrong.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: KBellve on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 02:34 PM EST |
| The Street posts a report about the court
case
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/ronnaabramson/10130633.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 03:05 PM EST |
i just came from the hospital waiting room where after
hours of boredum i picked up an issue of BusinessWeek(i
think), on page 50 was an article about the current trend
of creative accounting, creative preformance reporting,
and ethics. the different sides were arguing whether
investors really NEED to know the whole truth. arguing
that they did not need to know was one Kevin McBride.
why does that name sound familiar?
i'm sure the article can be found online if anyone wants
to double check it.
---
=====
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 Monday, December 08 2003 @ 03:23 PM EST |
SCO has a new major institutional investor:
CAPITAL GUARDIAN TRUST. It would be too
funny if William Flumenbaum, Senior Vice President CAPITAL GUARDIAN TRUST got
investment advice from an
acquaintance..
Enjoy![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 04:28 PM EST |
| Well, it looks like the stock started to feel the results of the court case
today. And perhaps more interestingly,
the mainstream press (well, more
mainstream than normal) started to take
notice. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 07:00 PM EST |
SCO seems to be tossing money right and left to outside interests. Is it likely
that some of these could just be ways to siphon off funds created by the stock
pump? How convoluted would the money trail have to be to move it to Canopy while
shielding the people forming the pipeline?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 07:15 PM EST |
As a reason for this, the company cited an investment of $50 million
USD, which has to be accounted for correctly. For doing this, they had to use
the help of external experts, which delayed the quarterly statement.
Justacottonpickin'minute! I've let this nagging feeling go
unexplored since I read those sentences and I just realized what bugs me about
them: SCO took a highly structured investment, signed a complicated compensation
scheme which diluted their holdings and added an external party (their
nowhere-to-be-found lawyer) to their equity ranks and they don't already know
how to account for these transactions. Huh? Why go through weird
gyrations without first knowing how they will affect your bottom line? How did
they cost/justify their actions? TSG sounds less like a publicly traded
coporation and more like the shady group of nincompoops that they are. If I
was part of the old Santa Cruz Operation I'd be pissed how TSG is leveraging and
ruining the SCO name. Maybe enough to come forward (anonymously perhaps) with
damning information about SCO using Linux in UnixWare... ---
SCO delenda
est! Salt their fields! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: emebit on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 07:59 PM EST |
The new date of December 22 is really close to the Chirstmas holiday. I can't
help wonder it they chose that date in the hopes that most people will be on
vacation and not notice either the conference call or news reports about it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Bill The Cat on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 09:02 PM EST |
Could it be that SCO is setting this up to be their legal excuse to state WHY
they couldn't provide the discovery material to IBM? This would, on the
surface, look like a legitimate excuse because the SEC needs this information
and the court case can wait.
---
Bill Catz
Most trouble is produced by those who don't produce anything else.--Walt Allmand[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 02:28 AM EST |
Okay, we all know the court case is absolute rubbish, and now with the
accounting of the Baystar/DB investment looking all hinkey, the endgame may be
very near indeed.
So what does the endgame look like?
We have two possibilities, the Baystar/DB PIPE collapsing, and SCO running out
of cash and filing for chapter whatever, or SCO manages to make it to court, and
the case is dismissed with prejudice, or they lose, but are too short on cash to
mount an appeal.
So then what?
They still have IBM's countersuit hanging over them, as well as the Red Hat
action in Delaware.
Their only asset of tangible value, the Unix source, has almost no value in its
own market, and whatever intrinsic value it does have will be further chopped by
a negative court ruling.
So then what? Liquidation? Chapter 11 reorganization? Into what?
The odds of anybody ever picking up the Unix source, and building a viable
software/services company around it are very slim.
So what happens to SCOX at the end of the day?
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 04:14 AM EST |
I suspect the audit problem, if it exists, might extend to past quarters.
Remember the quarter ending in July 31? Microsoft revenue suddenly appears on
the last day of the quarter, to make SCO look profitable.
Now think about it, even if MS placed an order on SCO on the very last day of
the quarter... revenue is NEVER normally accounted for immediately. It has to be
accounted for on delivery, payment, etc. usually over a period of time. It would
most likely be incorrect to count it all on the day the order was placed.
More research on SCO accounting of MS revenue, strongly suggested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Past Quarters - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 06:12 AM EST
- Past Quarters - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 06:59 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 05:29 AM EST |
| BBSpot is running a humorous satire on the SCO mess
SCO Must Prove
Existence of Santa Claus
Hilarious
---
Artificial Intelligence
is no match for natural stupidity [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 05:44 AM EST |
I could be wrong, but I think SCO has to pay some royalties to NOVEL as it did
own all the copyright?
If so, this payment of royalty should appear in the accounting record ? unless
they misappropriate or never pay the rolyaties due to NOVEL.
any light on this[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 06:19 AM EST |
| InfoWorld is is
reporting on both the Dec 5 hearing and the delay of Earnings
Release.
Quite balanced, with quotes from both sides
---
Artificial
Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 06:31 AM EST |
You've got to hand it to SCO -- their public PR is going to keep on haunting
them on the court floor.
See this fine Stowellism as reported by The Street:
The judge's order compelling SCO to produce its code was "absolutely not
a surprise to us at all," Stowell said. "We were sure at some point
we would need to be more specific, and this was that point."
That's nothing short of *admitting* they're dragging their feet over
discovery. They were *sure* they needed to be more specific, but still failed to
act accordingly until IBM filed a motion to compel and the judge granted it!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 07:58 AM EST |
| The call was probably moved because there was still a discusssion going on with
the investors. They investors need to approve if money is going to
Boies.
For more read:
SCO Finalizes
Agreements With Investors and Law Firms
SEC Filing
H@ns [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 10:26 AM EST |
OK, let's say that you book your revenue on delivery (as you
state)
Microsoft and Sun bought a licence on code that already existed,
so "the services" could be delivered immediately. Even if this
involves code, pre-existing code can be delivered immediately.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
