|
|
| The Worm Turns and Squirms. And Wall Street Almost Gets It. |
 |
|
Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 06:24 AM EST
|
Reaction to Darl's recent Open Letter hasn't been positive. There is almost uniformly negative publicity for them. Even the Salt Lake Tribune ran a mostly negative story. For the first time that I have noticed, a member of the financial media has taken note that SCO's financial dreams may not be so solid. Thestreet.com has an article entitled "SCO Group Hit By Double Whammy": "Shares of SCO Group (SCOX :Nasdaq - commentary -research) , the company challenging the popular Linux movement, fell sharply Monday after the company lost a court motion Friday and postponed its earnings report."
The Motley Fool doesn't seem to give much for SCO's chances either. What took Wall Street so long? Seriously, why has Wall Street been so slow to catch up with the rest of us? It's a puzzlement. I guess dreams of untold wealth die hard.
Of course, in that world's stories, there is always a SCO silver lining: "The legal setback may prove temporary for SCO, however. SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said the company will have the opportunity to argue again in Jan. 23 that IBM also should produce source code.
"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.'"
Even the lovely and tireless Ms. DiDio is starting to wobble in her erstwhile loyalty. She says she found Darl's recent Open Letter difficult to read: "'My first reaction, when reading [SCO's] letter, is that it was difficult to get past [the] first paragraph,' Yankee Group senior analyst Laura DiDio told the E-Commerce Times. 'I understand that The SCO Group is trying to explain its position, and by so doing it hopes to change the opinion -- of a large portion of the high-tech industry -- that it is "the bad guy." Unfortunately, the die was cast in March 2003 when The SCO Group launched its lawsuit against IBM.
"'SCO's action has ... put it squarely at odds with the open-source and Linux community, which views them as the villain. That is not likely to change,' DiDio added. 'SCO chose to exercise its right to litigate. Nothing The SCO Group says at this point, no matter how well intentioned, will convince its critics that it is a white knight. SCO's best chance of swaying enterprise opinion is to be sensitive to the needs and budgets of the enterprise community and to remember that IBM and Red Hat corporate customers are innocent bystanders in this ongoing vendor war.'" DiDio isn't the only one. Ted Schadler, principal software analyst at Forrester Research, said this: "In my opinion, SCO's posturing in the press is nothing more than keeping the fire lit to keep their stock value up. My recommendation? Don't go long in SCOX." The honorable Bill Claybrook, with Aberdeen Group, who was the first analyst to question SCO's claims about the code, told E-CommerceTimes
" . . . that he does not find any of SCO's arguments compelling and said it will be very difficult to prove the origin of the code in Linux that SCO claims is copied." Oddly enough, there was a "Sponsored Link" on that same page, letting me know I can have a "FREE complete copy of Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX (64)". No, thanks. Not even free. See, this is the problem. When they say "free", they mean one thing; when we say it, we mean another. Now if MS really offered free software, free as in free speech, I might take it and I'd pay for it too. That sentence may confuse them. Linus' reaction to the Open Letter is here: "I was recently sent a copy of SCO CEO Darl McBride's open letter on copyright law. As usual, McBride portrays the Linux community as the enemy of copyright. As always, he gets fundamental facts wrong.
"[The letter's] argument about copyright law is totally specious and fails any sensible test. [It] claims that the U.S. Congress' authority under the U.S. Constitution to 'promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts' inherently includes a profit motive.
"This is an obvious misrepresentation of facts. It's akin to saying that public universities are fundamentally unconstitutional, since they 'promote the Progress of Science' yet they aren't motivated by profit. . . .
"Maybe someone can explain to Darl that the GPL is designed so that people receive the value of other people's copyrighted works in return for having made their own contributions. That is the fundamental idea of the whole license -- everything else is just legal fluff." Larry Lessig told E-Commercetimes that "based on the claims he has seen, SCO's case is 'totally frivolous'." Frivolous isn't a word lawyers use lightly. If your case is found to be frivolous by a judge, the lawyers for the frivolous litigant can be sanctioned. Yup. Money. They, at least, are supposed to know better. Linuxworld has an article by an attorney who says that SCO's mistake was it has no patents. If you want to clean up, he says, you need patents: 'Without its own patent claims, the deck is stacked against SCO, and if IBM and/or Red Hat succeeds on the merits, SCO's IP claims against others will be toothless. Nonetheless, there are very few certainties in litigation, as IBM and Red Hat well know. If SCO mounts enough of an attack to sustain the cases towards trial, the risks may be too great for IBM and Red Hat to continue, and settlement is possible. If that occurs, the rest of the industry best be prepared to open its checkbook." It's hard to kill a dream, eh? Still with the buyout fantasy. This is from a lawyer, no less. Risks for Red Hat, sir? I believe you failed to note that it is Red Hat suing SCO, not the other way around. There are no risks to Red Hat. And as for IBM thinking its risks are too great in the court room, well, I think that's out. We've seen they've decided to crush SCO to smithereens instead of buying them. I'm not a lawyer who "specializes in intellectual property litigation and counseling" but I know a legal tidal wave when I see one. The brainiacs at IDC predict , in the same E-Commercetimes story, that IBM will "extend the same type of indemnification to its customers that HP unveiled earlier this year in the face of stepped up legal action from SCO." I wonder if they have as much fun at IBM reading nonsense about themselves as I do reading it about them? They'll offer that type of indemnification when pigs fly or when they suffer a stroke and forget what it is that makes GNU/Linux special, both of which are conceivable but not likely. Of course, the always very nervous George Weiss continues to fret that companies might tell a reporter they use Linux. They should keep a low profile, in his timid opinion. Of course, I'm sure MS wouldn't mind if nobody found out the whole world is switching to Linux. Hmm. "The whole world." I need to be careful. I'm starting to talk like Sun Microsystems. I believe they are claiming the whole world for themselves: "Banking on the China deal's potential of rolling out tens of millions of Linux-based desktops, Sun could become the largest Linux company in the world, McNealy said." I guess the love affair with Linux is back on again. On, off. It's so hard to keep track of such a fickle lover. Though Sun's sweeping claims may be questionable, there is one thing about their new product. It's irresistibly beautiful: "McNealy showed off a 3-D Java program called "Looking glass" which will be included in upcoming version of JDS. The program allows users to move around the desktop and view items in 3-D, with documents appearing to float, partially transparent, in the air." You can read about it here and see a demo here or off this page. Personally, I'll wait for a GNU/Linux equivalent from a company I trust not to encumber software with patents and to still love Linux in the morning, but it's still wonderfully tempting to see 3D. Please get to work on this, guys. Reaction to the SCO defeat in court Friday is now beginning to show up, and it's all negative too, severely negative. The stock was down nearly 8%, for starters, as you can see on the chart. Linuxworld began its coverage gloomily: "The SCO Group is about to find out just how prudent it was to claim that 'million lines of code' in Linux are there because IBM illegally put them there in breach of SCO's intellectual property rights . . . . Many pundits are predicting it will be a Happy New Year for Linux." PCPro interviewed Jason Schultz, staff attorney for the Electric Frontier Foundation, who predicted: "'If SCO doesn't start turning over some real information to IBM soon, I could see the judge sanctioning SCO for money as a punishment for non-compliance. Such sanctions can be pretty steep.' . . . .
"If SCO is unable to satisfy the terms of the motions, IBM may well ask for the case to be thrown out. . . . However, Schultz said: 'I'm sure the judge will give SCO many, many chances to satisfy IBM's requests before considering dismissal of the case. Dismissal is a very drastic action at this stage.'" ZDNET reports that SCO's Blake Stowell says Northrop Grumman was not the one Fortune 500 company that signed up for SCO's license to run Linux. Northrop declined to comment when asked. My brain finds it hard to put those two sentences together. Why would Northrup have a problem saying they aren't the company, if they aren't? But if they aren't, why did IBM subpoena them? It's probably way over my pretty little head. The article mentions SCO's handing IBM source code on paper instead in digital form, and here is Stowell's reaction to IBM complaining about that in court: "If a company wants code, it's the other party's decision to provide that any way they feel like providing that." Tell it to the judge, Mr. Stowell. Oh. You did. And it fell flat. MacObserver scored Friday "IBM:1, SCO:0" but it ended its piece with an odd final sentence: "We should make it clear that we believe very strongly that a company should protect its intellectual property when there is need, but we also believe that there are reasonable way to do this. SCO chose to alienate the industry by making unproven claims, and then attempting to extort fees without proving it has the right to do so. The initial effect has so far been to add some confusion to the Linux and UNIX community, something that Microsoft enjoys seeing. That might change sooner than many of us had hoped." Now that I read it, the first sentence and the entire tone is a bit odd. Is that saying what it seems to be saying, that they were hoping for a more prolonged confusion to the Linux and UNIX community? I must have read it wrong. That makes no sense. Surfing about to find all these articles gave me a chance to notice comments and feedback on several other web sites. There is no question that Groklaw's comments are head and shoulders above anything I saw elsewhere. We don't get arguments over politics, like the thread I saw on geek.com about whether Joe McCarthy was a patriot or a swine, for example. And we don't get anything like this comment, also on geek.com: ""Free Lunch" ? (11:49am EST Mon Dec 08 2003)
"I wrote an 'Open Source' program too hoping to make a living. Unfortunatley, now I'm broke, my car was reposessed and my landlord threw me out. Now I'm homeless and can't care for my wife and kids. -by OpenSourceSucks"
Tip to astroturfers: you need to learn the culture and the lingo better than that to blend in as a solitary writer of an open source program. Hint: look up what "open source" means. Next, research what motivates folks to work on open source projects. Duh. One thoughtful guy did comment on Darl's letter, which said that profit is the engine that ensures the progress of science, by saying that although he was an "outsider to the open-source community" he "could see the progress of science demonstrated in linux." Then suddenly, on MacObserver, I stumbled across a comment about Groklaw, which said in part: "Yeah, very good information source. Just remember that Groklaw was dumbfounded like the rest of the EFF-oriented community, that Lessig lost the Eldrich case. They certainly have strong, well reasoned opinions, but that doesn't mean their opposition doesn't, and it doesn't mean they will prevail in court. It also doesn't mean that code wasn't taken, nor does it mean that SCO's distribution of it under the GPL was a willful GPL'ing of their proprietary code." Groklaw wasn't dumbfounded by the Eldred case for the simple reason that it didn't exist when that case was decided. The case was decided in January of 2003. Groklaw began in May of 2003. Groklaw also isn't connected in any way with EFF. Well, I thought, I guess Groklaw has hit the big time now. Next, you will be in the checkout line at the supermarket and see a headline in a tabloid that I am having Darl's alien baby. P.S. That's not true either. I saved the best for last. The Inquirer's Egan Orion has a reaction to the Open Letter from FSF's Eben Moglen: "As an amateur scholar of constitutional law, Mr. McBride is longer than he is deep." If brains and a good sense of humor mean anything, I'd say our side has it in the bag. Without a doubt, we are having more fun. Here's a reaction to the Open Letter that is exclusive to Groklaw from Richard Stallman:
"The SCO statement is designed to confuse three separate questions:
* Are today's copyright laws just or unjust? (They are unjust, and morally
bankrupt, when used to stop people from sharing.)
* Will Congress and the Supreme Court support today's copyright laws?
(Congress probably will, in the short term. . . However, proprietary software
distribution is mainly a matter of contract law rather than copyright.)
* Does SCO have a valid claim against Linux, the kernel of the GNU+Linux
operating system, under copyright law? (Not as far as we can tell.)"
He also finds fault with this statement in Darl's letter: "'In the past 20 years, the Free Software Foundation and others in the Open Source software movement..." and corrects Darl: "That statement is false because it describes the FSF as part of the open
source movement, whose views we disagree with.
"We are part of the free software movement, which built our community with its idealism. The open source movement was started much later as a reaction against our ideals. We disagree with that movement on basic
philosophical values--what's important, what's the whole point?
"Our practical activities have an overlap with those of the open source
movement, so we can and do work with their supporters on practical
projects. But we don't support that movement and never did. See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for
the details, if you haven't already read it." Darl, like the astroturfer, forgot one of the most important rules of warfare: know your enemy.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 06:38 AM EST |
just saw this on yahoo ... pretty much McBride regurgitating that it's all good
with Boies et al.
Mentioned as also a filing "Form 8-K that SCO filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission today" (9th Dec.)
Was quite surprised not to see some new FUD.
Interesting though was this bit
he SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), a leading provider of UNIX-based
solutions, today announced that it has finalized an agreement with institutional
investors BayStar Capital Partners, II, L.P. and Royal Bank of Canada, and as
previously announced, finalized its amended agreement with Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, and associated law firms, to further align the parties' interests
and to maximize value for all stockholders. SCO's agreement with its
institutional investors provides them a right of consent to certain company
actions that would entitle the law firms to receive a contingency fee.
Have a look here
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031209/latu037a_1.html
I've been lurking and hope i don't post stuff that's been put up already
JAN
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 06:42 AM EST |
I believe it highly likely SCO will have to restate revenues for previous
quarters on Dec 22.
The most likely reason is the auditors balked (we have seen unaudited results so
far this year) when reviewing the reports of previous quarters.
Support for this theory:
1. The announcement of the shift in announcement date, cites audit risks in the
footnote. They have never cited audit risks before.
2. Remember in view of 1, the audit must be going on NOW and for some time.
3. Dan Campbell who has CFO experience was recently brought in to SCO's rather
large (now) board. In case of failing to pass an audit, CEO and/or CFO usually
falls on sword. So I am expecting Bench (current CFO) might be the first
casualty.
4. Check *when* (i.e. how quickly after sale) they accounted for MS 2nd
license. In quarter ending July 31. Also check how they reported cost of sales
for SCOsource. IANA financial expert, but even I raised an eyebrow.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: Dec 22 - Authored by: egan on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 07:19 AM EST
- OT: Dec 22 - Authored by: archanoid on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 08:40 AM EST
- OT: Dec 22 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 03:56 PM EST
- OT: Dec 22 - Authored by: mdchaney on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 07:50 AM EST
- Correlate lawyer fees - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 09:28 AM EST
- OT: Dec 22 - Authored by: Ruidh on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 10:14 AM EST
- OT: Dec 22 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:17 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 07:04 AM EST |
| PJ wrote
What took Wall Street so long? Seriously, why has Wall Street been
so slow to catch up with the rest of us? It's a puzzlement. I guess dreams of
untold wealth die hard.
It seems to be institutional. Even today, Wall
street et. al. cannot come to terms with the concept of making money from
something that is free. It simply makes no sense to many. Hence they stick with
the view that SCO can't be the one in error; after all, they have
the business model they know, accept and love.
It makes sense to us, because
we know the value, to a company, is in services that can be provided in support
of open source products.
Indeed, in this area, we have not effectively shown
the business community just why Open Source can be so profitable and
enjoyable, even though there are successful companies using Linux+Gnu as their
basis.
Note that there are, of course, many analysts who do see open
source as a viable and profitable business sector, but Wall street is still
mainly run by dinosaurs (in the geek sense, see the Jargon File, meaning 2 here)
Getting
past this inherent distrust of 'new' business models is perhaps the next real
hurdle.
---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: coolmos on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 07:34 AM EST |
"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.'"
If they knew this, they should be punished for wasting the courts time.
Darl McBride reminds me of Johnny English, the Rowan Atkinson movie:
-He knows no fear
-He knows no danger
-He knows nothing
It always puzzles me how the stupidest people get to the highest positions. Or
is it just the fact they are more visible ?
Or maybe he is just a genius. If this lawsuit fails, the company is bankrupt. If
the lawsuit never happened, the company would have gone bankrupt. What's there
to lose ?
What Darl fails to see, is that money in itself has no value. Money is just a
representation of an amount of labour. So if you write software, and release it
stating that you want to be able to use other peoples labour because they use
yours (GPL), the only thing you are missing is the shiny metal and printed paper
called money which is normally used to trade the labour.
I don't think the constitution says you HAVE to use money.
I guess i'm just a lefty commie hippie.......
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 07:35 AM EST |
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1405836,00.asp
"While David Boies (who represented the Department of Justice in its
antitrust case against Microsoft) and his fellow Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP lawyer Mark Heise are SCO's attorneys in this case, the company was
represented at the hearing by CEO Darl McBride's brother Kevin. Kevin McBride,
according to West Legal Directory, has a private practice in nearby Park City,
Utah, where he specializes in litigation and appeals, not corporate-contract or
intellectual-property law."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: old joe on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 07:41 AM EST |
The gnu.org link is down today but the page is available from the google
cache here.
Joe [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tbdavis on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 07:46 AM EST |
What took Wall Street so long? Seriously, why has Wall
Street
been so slow to catch up with the rest of us? It's a puzzlement. I
guess dreams
of untold wealth die hard. – PJ
It is a mistake to
think of Wall Street as a single entity. As investors,
we are Wall Street. As
long as even one person with money to invest
(albeit, bags of the stuff) thinks
that SCO is a good investment, the stock
will stay up, because there is a buyer
for the smart sellers who are
dumping it. When the stock price drops and stays
down, it means that
everyone realizes what's going on. A more
meaningful
question would be, "What took everyone so long to catch up?" And
that's
a more easily understood answer. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I am Wall Street - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 10:00 AM EST
- I am Wall Street - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 02:40 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: miss_cleo_psy4u on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 07:51 AM EST |
We need to get a saved media stream of Darls 7:54AM
appearance, presumably to explain the recent developments and
new 8-K.
http://www.bloomberg.com/media/tv/guests_us.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eibhear on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 07:55 AM EST |
With apologies to the good HST.
Remember the conference when Darl-boy
held up a folder press clipping from the previous year, saying that it
demonstrated that SCO was as relevant now as it ever was? I can see the growth
of that folder slowing as the next few months progress. Eventually, and I
predict that it will be around the first anniversary of the initial filing next
March, the folder's growth will grind to a trickle. Next year, if SCO's still
around and if Darl-boy's still at the helm, he'll be showing a folder of press
clippings from the previous two years, and in 4 years' time, the folder
will contain clippings from the previous five years. Mind you, it will be little
different from its first presentation. The only additions will probably be
Groklaw comments which will contain "remember SCO?"
somewhere.
--
Ulaanbaatar, United States of Free
Asia, May 32456 AD. In a paper released today from the Department of
Biodiversity in the University of Inner Mongolia, the first successful grafting
of hummingbird wings onto a pig's back was announced. "This was made possible by
the Assisted Hummingbird Growth project taking place in Kota Bharu in Free
Malayland," said professor Lie, joint author of the paper. "We believe pigs, at
least lower-mass pigs, will be able to fly with some skill within 2 or three
decades."
Meanwhile, MG00102, one of the members of IBM's load-balanced
board of directors, announced that IBM has no plans to indemnify customers who
use the GNU/Linux operating system. "Mr. McBride must be made to understand that
the story is old now," MG00102 was quoted as saying. Darl McBride's
cryogenically maintained brain was taken out of stasis on schedule in it's
permanent home on the Lunar University of Human Derangement yesterday. It comes
out of stasis every 100 years for the purposes of research. As normal, its first
request was to ask IBM to show it means business by offering to indemnify
customer of GNU/Linux. It appears that no one has told Mr. McBride's brain that
the case in question was eventually laughed out of court in 2004, 30,252 years
ago, and that GNU/Linux was superceded in popularity by GNU/Hurd 10 year later.
Linux 45.4.23, the last release from 2065, is still available at some musuem web
sites.
--
PJ says:
way over my pretty
little head
So pretty, yet so disruptive.
Éibhear [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 08:03 AM EST |
info
As
seen on Yahoo (link)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: john82a on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 08:16 AM EST |
DiDio was quoted:"SCO's best chance of swaying enterprise opinion is to
be sensitive to the needs and budgets of the enterprise community and to
remember that IBM and Red Hat corporate customers are innocent bystanders in
this ongoing vendor war". So, no indemnification and no licences then.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Peter Smith on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 08:37 AM EST |
PJ you ask why Wall St are seemingly supportive of SCO and you also mention
astroturfing.
I have had a lifelong aversion to conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists
but I seem to be about to join their ranks :)
In my reading of many publication during the last few months the choice of
articles and more particularly their wording has left me with a troubling
suspicion that publications are, inexplicably, adopting a pro-MS and anti Open
Source stance. Then I also see them carry an increasing amount of MS
advertising.
At the same time there as been an upsurge of vitriolic anti Open Source
sentiment in many discussion forums. Interestingly enough such comment is often
quickly posted soon after an article appears.
I am really not sure if I am being paranoid, or at the least hypersensitive. But
I gain the distinct impression that there is a widespread campaign on the one
hand, at the editorial level, to negatively influence perceptions of Open Source
and on the other hand to give the negative perceptions some credence with an
orchestrated campaign of astroturfing.
(I would guess that very large advertising budgets can have a potent influence
on a publication's editorial policy.)
So I am posting this partly in responce to your question, PJ and partly in the
hope of discovering whether my fellow readers think there is some substance to
my troubling suspicions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Philosophical bent - Authored by: freeio on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 09:03 AM EST
- Astroturfing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 09:13 AM EST
- Astroturfing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 05:25 PM EST
- Wall Street Almost Gets It. (despite the disinformation campaign) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 09:15 AM EST
- Wall Street Almost Gets It. (despite the disinformation campaign) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 09:31 AM EST
- You're not paranoid -- Astroturf exists - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:43 AM EST
- Wall Street Almost Gets It. (despite the disinformation campaign) - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:50 AM EST
- Wall Street Almost Gets It. (despite the disinformation campaign) - Authored by: bobh on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:35 PM EST
- Astroturfing - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:36 PM EST
- Wall Street Almost Gets It. (despite the disinformation campaign) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 01:44 PM EST
- Wall Street Almost Gets It. (despite the disinformation campaign) - Authored by: vonbrand on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 02:56 PM EST
- Read Toxic Sludge is Good for You - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 10 2003 @ 01:19 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: zjimward on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 08:52 AM EST |
PJ, I think if the tabloid thing were true I'd have an abortion. Thanks for the
great laugh.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 08:52 AM EST |
I'd like to talk about why Wall Street is so slow to catch on... I mean, I
can't say for sure why, but I would point out that every decade, or so, some
guy comes along and sells Wall Street on another perpetual motion machine.
Darl's just found another version of that story. I'm not sure what it takes
to be a successful broker, but it ought to be clear to everyone by now that the
ability to critically evaluate a logical argument is *not* one of the features
well represented in that community.
Also PJ quoted:
"We should make it clear that we believe very strongly that a company
should protect its intellectual property when there is need, but we also believe
that there are reasonable way to do this. SCO chose to alienate the industry by
making unproven claims, and then attempting to extort fees without proving it
has the right to do so. The initial effect has so far been to add some confusion
to the Linux and UNIX community, something that Microsoft enjoys seeing. That
might change sooner than many of us had hoped."
And then wrote:
Now that I read it, the first sentence and the entire tone is a bit odd. Is that
saying what it seems to be saying, that they were hoping for a more prolonged
confusion to the Linux and UNIX community? I must have read it wrong. That makes
no sense.
I agree, it is tedious, but a charitable reader can see, I believe, that they
are being pleasant; suggesting that rather than dragging on for years this
nightmare may be over in a few more weeks. They left out the word 'dared',
you see?
Wouldn't it be a pity if Darl didn't make it to his fourth quarter?
<sniff> <wipe away an invisable tear>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dentonj on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 08:53 AM EST |
I'm surprised that no one has picked up on Kevin McBride admitting in court that
SCO doesn't know what IBM is infringing on.
IBM did contribute
stuff to Linux, "we just don't know what it is."
We won't know what is
trade secrets and what is contract and what is copyright until we see IBM's
discovery.
Maybe the press is waiting for the official
transcripts...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 09:00 AM EST |
Loot. Glorious LOOT! You can see the golden dollar signs blazing in
their eyes and hear the KA-CHING every time these people blink! Feb-March must
have been an orgasmic time for Darl and Boies. If you read the filing, more
pieces of the jigsaw slide into place.
From the Feb 26 Legal Firms
Engagement Agreement:
"We are pleased to confirm your decision
to engage the law firms to act as legal counsel for Caldera International, Inc.,
The SCO Group and SCO, Inc. (collectively referred to as the Client or SCO) in
connection with the further investigation and prosecution of SCO’s UNIX-related
intellectual property rights and trade secrets and the institution of
settlement discussions and/or litigation against IBM, other source code
licenses..."
Settlement with IBM mentioned before litigation.
Wishful thinking?
"It is hereby recognized and acknowledged that
Kevin McBride, the brother of SCO’s Chief Executive Officer, Darl McBride, is an
attorney at Angelo, Barry & Boldt who will be working on this matter. By
signing below, Darl McBride acknowledges that full disclosure of Kevin McBride’s
involvement in the matter and the terms and conditions of the fee letter has
been made to and approved by the Board of Directors of
Client."
Yup, so brother to Darl ("and this is my other
brother Darl") was in the game from the get-go. Everybody gets a piece of the
pie. Lots to go around, folks, when IBM settles out of court.
Yeee-hawwwww!
"Be advised that outside experts and consultants
will likely be extremely expensive and such experts and consultants can cost One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) or more. When it becomes necessary to use
outside consultants and experts, outside consultants and experts will be
retained by our firm, with consent of Client. However, payments of consultants’
and experts’ fees and costs will be solely your
responsibility."
A million bucks to be a SCO mouthpiece in
court? Me me me, oh pick me, please! I'm more than happy to sit on Kevin's lap
and not blink and recite the history of Unix while he drinks water from a
glass.
SCHEDULE A [Deleted by agreement among the parties
hereto.]
I'm confused. Was Schedule A deleted at the time of
entering into the Engagement Letter (i.e. it was negotiated out) or was it
deleted prior to submitting the 8K? Curious.
"If the law firms
terminate the representation because the Client fails to comply with the terms
of this engagement letter, including but not limited to failure to pay invoices
when due, the law firms shall receive the contingency fees as set forth in this
Schedule."
Ah yes. The "You win, you pay us; you lose, you pay
us; so just pay us already" clause. Money for nothing and your chicks for
free.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 09:09 AM EST |
McBride on Bloomberg TV
Friday was apparently a win for
SCO.
IBM gave to SCO, all the documents that SCO needed, just before
the hearing.
Now SCO can prove all its allegations and looks forward to
winning.
All this according to McBride.
Hint to groklaw:
I hope the transcript makes it Judge Wells when SCO turn up with their
non-answers at the next discovery hearing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Till Poser on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 09:25 AM EST |
| Mylady Pamela, Gentlecritters,
it seems as if the there still is some
rearguard action with some parthian shots from the usual
suspects:
http://www.forbes.com/2003/12/08/cx_1207bbopensource.html?partn
er=yahoo&referrer=
NEW YORK - In 50 years what will be considered
the most significant business trend of 2003? Vote until Dec. 15 and share your
thoughts in our forum. We will publish the results and the most
thought-provoking comments later this month.
She's making the vacuous
statement that the lawsuit will linger on (unless SCO is wiped out in the next
few months, of course). And of course she trots out ye olde hoary
indemnification FUD.
And as for FUD, well, the concluding sentence has it
all:
SCO's case is set to go to trial in 2005. Whatever the outcome, the case
will likely have a profound impact on the economics of the fast-growing,
currently "free" Linux software. Will open source devotees look back on 2003 as
the beginning of the end? Or just the end of the beginning?
Now all
we need is another uniformed piece of prose from Enderle on just how nasty the
old GPL and the Open Source Movement is.
And these people call themselves
"analysts"?
Till Poser
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 09:36 AM EST |
Why does Wall Street take so long to catch on? In my arguably limited experience
with the stock markets, one thing is clear to me. Stock prices in the tech
sector seem to run more off speculation than hard facts. I think it’s likely
that many investors simply don’t care too much whether SCOG will succeed or fail
in its lawsuit, they are simply “in play’ because they have big public things
happening.
There are whole classes of “get rich quick” types in the stock market who keep
looking for the next item to ratchet up their bank accounts quickly. SCOG
represents an opportunity to make a pile of cache because every time Darl makes
a public comment on how they can’t lose or how Open Source is the enemy of
democracy and SCOG are the champions of capitalism, people think others will buy
the stock because of the news stories so if they buy quickly, they can make
money on the upswing. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy and ultimately a self
defeating one (anyone remember the self destruction of the tech sector in 2000 –
2001?)
Wait until a serious setback occurs for SCOG in court, something the press jumps
on that will raise serious doubts in the mind of the uninformed public as to
whether they will succeed, their stock will tank like a rock thrown into a pond.
Appearance is everything.
-pooky
---
IANAL, etc...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: iMeowbot on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 09:44 AM EST |
| Electronic Times in Korea is carrying a really weird article about the current state of things. I'm not sure
if something was lost in the translation or these writers just have a peculiar
view of the world, but apparently between the SCOX suits and the changes in Red
Hat's product offerings, it is no longer possible to get free software for free,
or something. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BC on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 10:04 AM EST |
Regarding concerns about this bit, I think there little to worry
about.
"We should make it clear that we believe very strongly
that a company should protect its intellectual property when there is need, but
we also believe that there are reasonable way to do this. SCO chose to alienate
the industry by making unproven claims, and then attempting to extort fees
without proving it has the right to do so. The initial effect has so far been to
add some confusion to the Linux and UNIX community, something that Microsoft
enjoys seeing. That might change sooner than many of us had
hoped."
My read is:a) MacObserver supports appropriate
copyrights and enforcement.
b) SCO does not have appropriate copyrights to
enforce.
c) SCO did a dumb, dumb thing.
d) This caused confusion about
Linux which probably made MS happy.
e) The confusion may end sooner than
MacObserver hoped. (MacObs needs to read more GrokLaw)
PS - Great synopsis
of Linux news today PJ! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: moogy on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 10:06 AM EST |
IANAL, so I am asking about this possibilty.
SCO has announced plans to launch new law suits against
corporations who use Linux systems as well as hints, and
even mailed threats (the 1500 letters) of other courtroom
battle fronts they may engage.
At the same time, in their two current cases, they have
repeatedly used argument that they are overly burdoned
with fulfilling legal needs, asking for delays and/or
to combine cases to lessen their burdon. Meanwhile,
the slow resolution of their cases has a very negative
effect on both business and the public.
When SCO files new cases, as they have reported their
intentions to do so, is it possible that someone can
file an amicus on behalf of the public interest to
see these cases suspended or something until resolution
of their pending cases that depend on the exact same
issues where they keep begging for delays?
---
Mike Tuxford - irc.fdfnet.net #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 10:14 AM EST |
I can't help but wonder if Wall Street really knows SCO is playing games, but
sees a chance to profit selling SCOX to individuals who will get stuck holding
the bag when it tanks. "Let's put some lipstick on this pig!"
I think that as long as SCO does a good job of BS-ing, the analysts will have
plausible deniability and can claim they were fooled, too.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 10:28 AM EST |
Couldn't SCO just buy a patent from one of its best buddies who have a large
patent portfolio and who would be happy to sell SCO some silly patents in
exchange for:
1. some valuable SCO stock
2. an additional license to some extremely valuable right in Unix[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RacerX on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 10:57 AM EST |
I'm a Mac user, have been for more than 15 years. I own more than 10
macs the last time I counted. I'm a user of proprietary Unix, have been
for more than 10 years. I own three SGIs and two Suns. As of yet, I have
not used (to any great extent) a Linux system.
Given that, I know exactly what Linux and open source has brought to
the greater computing world.
I remember when a Unix based system was out of reach for mortals.
Apple's first Unix OS, A/UX (based on System V R2.2), was more than
$800. When NeXT ported their NEXTSTEP operating system over to other
hardware (including PCs) it was still over $800 (with an additional $5000
for the developer tools). When Apple bought NeXT, the prices inched
down a little ($500 for the first public release of Apple's Rhapsody-
based Mac OS X Server).
My first Sun operating system was Solaris 7, which I got in 1999 for
about $20. My first SGI (hardware and software) came to under $500 the
same year.
These prices reflected the effect of Linux on the market. I may not have
been using Linux, but the idea of Unix-like operating systems for
everyone started to be a possibility.
Then Apple took a bold step. They rewrote the foundations of Rhapsody,
removing parts that were restricted by software licenses, and released a
new version freely to the public under the new name of Darwin. Darwin,
like Linux, is free and is helped by a community of developers. It has
also had the effect of dropping the price of Apple's flagship operating
system, Mac OS X, down to a far more reasonable $129.00 (that includes
the developer tools).
Even with my SGIs, software companies like Adobe have long since
stopped making products like Illustrator or Photoshop for IRIX, but GIMP
works great. Microsoft is never planning on releasing a Solaris or IRIX
version of Office, but StarOffice and OpenOffice have filled those gaps
nicely.
SCO's threats are not lost on me. They are taking aim at BSD in order to
continue their fight. As a Mac user, that means I could be next on SCO's
list of people to extort money from.
Like how the Republican Party was getting the Green Party and the
Democratic Party to fight each other in the 2000 elections, Microsoft
wants nothing more than to see the Mac, Unix and Linux communities
fight among themselves. The only winner in this can and will be
Microsoft.
But even beyond all of the SCO threats and charges, I do realize that
Linux has changed the face of computing for the better. And even
though I don't use it, my computing life is better for it.
I suggest you forgive Mac users for not knowing what is going on. We
have been fighting to protect our platform for so long that we see
anyone as a threat. Apple has turned the corner, and their users will, in
time, see that what is good for Linux can also be good for Macs. I would
like to believe that the Unix community has already learned that lesson
(despite SCO's actions).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:02 AM EST |
Did you notice how Boies' Lawfirm mentioned that they expect McBride
to have disclosed to SCO's board that he hired his own brother as
attorney? Giving 10% of a 20% contingency to a family member ... not
even Enron people did that. We are talking here potentially about 2% of
$3bn dollar (well, at least in McBride's little dream world). If this thing
goes south (and it will), McBride is in a world of hurt from the SEC and
the feds.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sela on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:08 AM EST |
Finally, I see an article about SCO's mess in the Motley fool:
http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2003/mft03120905.htm
Favorite quotes:
"Odds are the Constitution will survive this dispute. The big question is
whether as much can be said for SCO Group investors."
"While the company insists this would not affect its prior guidance for
revenues of $22 million to $25 million, it does seem strange that a public
company would have problems with what looks to be a relatively routine process.
For short sellers, this is a textbook clue that there may be internal disarray
or perhaps, even some finagling."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:09 AM EST |
I was watching SCOX when the market opened this morning, and the early buying
spike was there again: SCOX opened at 15.34, then shot up to 16.18 almost
immediately. Funny thing was, it then did a U-turn and headed right back down
to where it started.
I wonder if other investors have caught on to the usual routine, and were lying
in wait for the morning paint? If someone wants to dump their SCOX, why not get
almost $1/share more for it by selling at the right time?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:15 AM EST |
http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2003/mft03120905.htm
http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/41093/windowspaul
thurrott_41093.html
But don't worry about SCO, as the company has another legal bomb to drop on
IBM: The company said this week it would add a copyright infringement lawsuit to
the previous charges. "[SCO] decided to notify the court they will be
adding [copyright infringement] as part of the claims," an SCO
spokesperson said Monday. "There will be a new filing on that coming out
in the near future." SCO says it would have filed copyright infringement
claims in its original lawsuit against IBM, but was thwarted when Novell claimed
it still owned the UNIX copyright. However, legal documents unearthed in June
proved that SCO owns the UNIX copyright, SCO says.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:17 AM EST |
See, this is the problem. When they say "free", they mean one thing; when
we say it, we mean another. Now if MS really offered free software, free as in
free speech, I might take it and I'd pay for it too. That sentence may confuse
them. In fact I pay for RedHat Enterprise but still consider it
Free. (However, I also support Bruce Perens' concept of
UserLinux, which aims to be more Free than RHES...or Fedora, for that
matter.). ---
SCO delenda est! Salt their fields! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:20 AM EST |
http://lwn.net/Articles/62185/
"It reveals some discomfort with the involvement of Kevin McBride, Darl's
brother, and requires an explicit confirmation that SCO's board has agreed to
this involvement."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: div_2n on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:23 AM EST |
From the MacObserver:
"That might change sooner than many of us had
hoped."
That could be interpreted a couple of ways. It could mean
they had hoped it would go on longer and the seemingly soon end was sooner than
what they had hoped
OR
You could take it to
mean they had hoped it would end soon but the recent turn of events will end it
even sooner.
Based on the tone of the previous sentences I take it to
mean the latter and not the former.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:23 AM EST |
"The legal setback may prove temporary for SCO, however. SCO
spokesman Blake Stowell said the company will have the opportunity to argue
again in Jan. 23 that IBM also should produce source code.
"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.'"
I'm more certain than
ever of a theory that I had put forward here earlier. In short, I believe that
their entire case now hinges on them getting IBM's source for AIX. They have
learned that figuring out the provenence of their code is very difficult, and
even if so, making something stick in court regarding IBM misconduct on that
code is especially tricky. The fact that they had contributed at different
points, and had released the entire thing under the GPL will hamper
this.
The contract dispute is where they are on firmer ground. And that is
something that they can only prove if they can get AIX code, do a comparison,
and thus prove that IBM violated their agreement by sharing code. This is not a
certain thing, but certainly enough for them to get past discovery and go
forward with the litigation. At that point, they can make a lot of hay in the
press to forward their licensing scheme. They'll have breathing room at that
point for more options. As of now, they are threading their case through that
particular needle.
The second paragraph quote above seems to indicate two
interesting things to me. First of all, this continues to prove that their goal
in this thing is to delay as much as possible. They can do better in the press
without specifics. Secondly, I do believe that they have something ready to
release, and that they were just holding back because it wasn't especially
strong. Their goal now is to make it strong enough to get AIX, even if we in the
community tear it apart at that point. Once they get AIX, their goal is met. I'm
looking forward to hearing the answers to those missing discovery items.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thorsten on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:25 AM EST |
Apparently, some large investors have become unhappy: http://www.heise.de/
newsticker/data/jk-09.12.03-004/
It's in German, so I'll
translate the most interesting bits:
Behind the
curtains, the board and the investors
allegedly discussed with the executive
directors the confrontational
course of the SCO Group. Today, the company
published a statement
about a new agreement. Central to this agreement is an
arrangement
with the large institutional investors that gives them the right
to prior
approval of far-reaching actions by the directors. This approval is
required if actions concern areas where a contingency fee is arranged
for SCO's legal representatives [...].
This agreement [...] suggests that not all investors
agree
with the course of the SCO Group to build a license business via the
lawsuit against IBM [...]. American analysts speculate that possibly the
internally
presented evidence of "code violation" by IBM could not convince
and
that therefore the "exit clause" had to be
formulated.
I wonder which investor it is that now
got cold feet... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:33 AM EST |
| The Motley Fool
is starting to get it: "Also on Friday, The SCO Group postponed filing its
fourth-quarter earnings report...it does seem strange that a public company
would have problems with what looks to be a relatively routine process. For
short sellers, this is a textbook clue that there may be internal disarray or
perhaps, even some finagling." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:14 PM EST |
Do you still think that SCO has buddies. Well buddies with patents. Lawyers will
always be your buddy if you pay them.
-Old7[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MyPersonalOpinio on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:14 PM EST |
The SCO-Boies contract and Baystar's rights to preempt contingency triggers
is on file at the SEC website
-
Engagement Agreement dated February 26, 2003 among SCO, Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Angelo, Barry & Boldt, P.A. and Berger
Singerman
-
Letter Amending Engagement Agreement dated November 17, 2003 from
Darl C. McBride, President and Chief Executive Officer of SCO, to David Boies of
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
-
Letter Agreement dated December 8, 2003 among SCO, BayStar Capital
II, L.P., Royal Bank of Canada and acknowledged by Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP
It also mentions about the retaining of the firm that employs
Kevin McBride [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:14 PM EST |
Actually there has been an Open Source 3D window manage for some time. Sun is
actually just playing catch up. Check out: http://www.3dwm.org/frameset.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:28 PM EST |
Usual rant. The interviewer was particularly weak.
-anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:39 PM EST |
From: http://w
ww.infoworld.com/article/03/12/08/HNibmscohearing_1.html:
SCO's
arguments Friday were not made by a representative of its high-profile legal
firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, but by Brent Hatch of the law firm
Hatch, James & Dodge PC, and by Kevin McBride, the brother of SCO Chief
Executive Officer Darl McBride and a lawyer with the law firm Angelo Barry &
Banta PC. Brent Hatch is the son of Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch.
Ding! That's why Gore's former attorney didn't show Friday, SCO is trying
to get the powerful Republicans on their side. [N.B.: I am a registered
Republican and voted happily for GWB]. Things that make one go
"hmmmm...."---
SCO delenda est! Salt their fields! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmccorm on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:39 PM EST |
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conews&tkr=SCOX:US
WELCOME BACK, EVERYBODY. 7:52 NEW YORK TIME.
SCO GROUP OWNS THE RIGHTS TO THE UNIX OPERATING SYSTEM AND
THEY HAVE SUED IBM, THEY ARE SEEKING ROYALTIES FROM COMPANIES
THAT USE LINUX SOFTWARE. THE SHARES HAVE SURGED MORE
THAN 900% THIS YEAR AS INVESTORS ARE BETTING THAT
SCO IS GOING TO BENEFIT FROM ITS LAWSUIT AGAINST IBM.
THIS MORNING ALSO WE ARE JOINED BY SCO'S CHIEF EXECUTIVE
DARL MCBRIDE WHO WILL TALK TO US ABOUT THE LAWSUIT AND WHAT
THE COMPANY MAY BE DOING NEXT. ALSO TAKING A LOOK AT THE
COMPANY'S FUNDAMENTALS. MR. MCBRIDE, THANK YOU FOR
BEING WITH US THIS MORNING. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
>> SURE. THANK YOU, SUZY.
SO, UH, WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU THINK YOU GOT AGAINST IBM?
>> WE HAVE VERY CLEAR-CUT EVIDENCE THAT IBM HAS A
>> CONTRACT WITH US AROUND HOW THEY USE THE UNIX OPERATING
>> SYSTEM THAT WE BELIEVE HAS BEEN BROKEN. AND WE THINK
>> BEFORE WE GET THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING IN THE
>> COURTROOM IN UTAH, SET FOR A COURT BATTLE A YEAR FROM
>> NOW, THE WORLD WILL BE ABLE TO FIND WHAT WE HAVE FOUND,
>> WHICH IS THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THEM TAKING OUR UNIX
>> PROTECTED CODE AND MOVING THAT INTO THIS FREE OPERATING
>> SYSTEM CALLED LINUX.
BUT ISN'T LINUX A FREE OPERATING SYSTEM? I MEAN, WHAT
GROUNDS ARE YOU SUING ON?
>> RIGHT. IT IS FREE. AND THAT'S REALLY PART OF THE
>> PROBLEM. OUR DEAL WITH IBM GOES BACK YEARS AND YEARS
>> AGO WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY CUT -- WHEN AT&T OWNED
>> THE PROPERTY. AND IT SAID YOU CAN TAKE THIS CODE,
>> YOU CAN GO BUILD AROUND IT AND DO NEW THINGS WITH IT
>> BUT YOU CAN'T GIVE IT AWAY, OK? YOU CAN'T GIVE IT TO
>> SOMETHING ELSE. IT'S CONFIDENTIALALLY PROTECTED. BY
>> GIVING IT AWAY IS WHAT HAS IN FACT CREATED THE
>> PROBLEM.
YOU KNOW LET ME PUT UP FOR OUR VIEWERS IBM'S STATEMENT BECAUSE
WE DO HAVE A STATEMENT FROM THEM WITH REGARD TO THIS ONGOING
LAWSUIT AND THE COMPANY SAID THAT ibm said that they said all
along that sco has failed to show evidence and back its claims
and their pleas to the court has indicated that it will compel
SCO to finally back up. What do you say to that?
>> Sure. We filed claims earlier this year, in march. Uh, both
>> sides have been going through the discovery process over the
>> last several months. Last week there were... motions to
>> compel on both sides.
>> Um, the night before the trial, before the hearing, I should
>> say, IBM showed up and gave us a substantial amount of what
>> we were asking for. The judge then said okay IBM, you got
>> what you, uh, you delivered that and now SCO its your turn
>> to step up and so that's what we're going to do. The point
>> here over the next coming weeks, Suzy, is that you are going
>> to see SCO step up with a substantial amount of infringment
>> related to Linux, and then we'll go from there.
Umh, You've also got David Boies with you of Microsoft [RIGHT]
as well as other [RIGHT] fame there. [SURE] You've got a
lucritive financial arrangement with him. What does he bring to
the table for you?
>> Well, David is outstanding. First of all, he is one of the
>> top litigators, not only in the us but in the world. He has
>> worked on high profile cases, like the microsoft case. Um,
>> he is extremely talented. As we win, David wins. And we put
>> a success agreement in place earlier this year. We
>> reinforced that with an announcmenet that came out this
>> morning. And, uh, David is, is very strong in terms of
>> litigation, and the deal we have with him is outstanding
>> as far as the company is concerned.
The stock has obviously run up a lot, mostly on expectation for
this lawsuit and where it is going to go. Tell us a little bit
about your growth strategy, I mean, beyond this. What are the
company's fundamentals?
>> Right. The company actually has been performing very well.
>> Take the lawsuit aside. Okay. In a year from now, when we're
>> in a courtroom in Utah, a year and a few months, we have a
>> claim against IBM for 3 billion dollars, which translates
>> into about $185 a share if we were to win that. Okay. Great.
>> From and investor's standpoint, obviously that has gained
>> some excitement.
>> Let's move that off to the side for a second and ask what
>> else do we have here. SCO, as the owner of the UNIX operating
>> system, um, sells into major corporations. So 7 of the top
>> 10 retailers in the world, costco, ecxards <SP?>, mcdonalds
>> as an example, run on SCO software.
>> And so, we have been generating profits, uh, continually
>> going through this year. We think that as we go forward,
>> there is a multi-billion dollar opportunity, just around
>> our ownership of the UNIX operating system.
Alright, we've got to leave it there. That's all the time we've
got today. But thank you for stopping by our offices today.
>> Thank you, Suzy. Good to see ya.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:40 PM EST |
Anyone think that it's possible SCO delayed the earnings report because the $50
million in investments might be questionable? It sounds like with the latest 8-K
filing
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903028046/a03-6084_18k.h
tm
The investors are raising lots of questions about the financial arrangements
SCOG made with the law firms. Possibly they threatened to pull the investment
unless SCOG agreed to give them some authority over taking an action that
triggers a contingency payment to the law firms?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903028046/a03-6084_1ex99
d3.htm
SCOG just paid the law firms $1.6 million relating to licensing agreements
recently entered in to:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903028046/a03-6084_1ex99
d2.htm
That seems to fall under the contingency payment section of the law firms
agreement with SCOG:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903028046/a03-6084_1ex99
d1.htm
Perhaps it is taking SCOG extra time to get things settled down and signed?
-pooky
---
IANAL, etc...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:43 PM EST |
On 10/30, in My
article, I wrote a comment about indemnification. Here is an update with
the same ideas:
IBM and Redhat have refused to give the broad
indemnification suggested by SCO and
Microsoft advocates. IBM and Redhat should
consider issuing the following PR release, which should have great publicity
value and little risk to IBM or Redhat:
We hereby agree that if SCO
sues any group of our customers, with one or more
members, and claims in any
court document that their use of a product or service
purchased from us, or a
modification thereof which no one in the group has
distributed, violates SCO's
copyrights, then we will aid the group in defending
their right to use all lines
of code that have been adequately and specifically
identified as infringing in a
court document filed by SCO before [date].
A modification is
distributed when it is transmitted or offered to any person
other than the
person or corporation that made the modification.
We also agree that,
if any of the lines above are finally adjudged to infringe
SCOs copyrights, we
will indemnify the group for a monetary penalty up to $XXX.
This monetary
indemnification is a total for the suit, to be divided equitably
among those in
the group who have not purchased SCO's purported license, and is
available for
the first applicable YYY suits filed by SCO.
Note that there are
currently no lines of code that SCO has adequately and
specifically identified
as infringing in a court document filed by SCO before. However, the court has
ordered SCO to provide such identification within 30 days. As SCO files
adequate and specific identification,
we intend to review SCO's claims, and
explicitly include or exclude specific
sets of lines from the above
agreements.
The above agreements are intended to help our customers
evaluate their risks in
continuing to purchase our products and services.
Hopefully, as SCO specifies
its claims and we determine which have little merit
and add them to this indemnification, those risks will drop rapidly to
zero.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:49 PM EST |
found this very funny (fake ?) hoax about SCO :
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/gilbert.fernandes/hoax/hoax100.txt
still laughing of it :D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas An. on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:54 PM EST |
The SCO case seems to only be a by proxy thwart attempt.
(the wiggling tip of
the snapper turtle's tongue, the dangling lure of the Whipnose Angler
Fish)
Now that this tentacle of the Hydra starts loosing its
effectiveness (one step at a time).
Is it possible that we start to hear the
growling and hissing sounds of the true beast ?
What is this I hear
about the FAT filesystem and Patents within the Linux kernel ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 12:56 PM EST |
From the Salt Lake
Tribune article:
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell acknowledged
the ruling went to the heart of his company's case against IBM, but said SCO
would have no difficulty complying. "We definitely will provide that within the
next 30 days, as the judge requested," he said.
I love how Stowell
spins a court order into "the judge requested."
I must
have missed the part where Judge Wells said please.
I guess now
I know where Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the Iraqi Information
Minister, is presently employed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 01:00 PM EST |
| How are you ever going to succeed in business unless you grossly overstate your
income? :) I think most of us would love to make half our billing rate!
And, as a contractor who makes my own billing rate, I wish I could charge what a
large company charges for their less-qualified goons...and I fear the tax man
who cometh... ---
SCO delenda est! Salt their fields! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 01:00 PM EST |
Check out the tone of this story, just
in:
http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2003/mft03120905.htm?source=eptyholnk303100&
;logvisit=y&npu=y[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 01:36 PM EST |
Blake Stowell announced:
``If a company wants code, it's
the other party's decision to provide that any way they feel like providing
that.''
Is this guy like this in real life or is he just a
smart aleck when talking to the press? He'd better hope that IBM doesn't
retaliate if you ever succeed in getting them to turn over the source code for
AIX and other software. Unless you have equipment in-house that can read
80-column EBCDIC punch cards (and a lot of them.) Even better, perhaps IBM
could dump the source code to punch cards, scan the cards (``Ooops!, some of
them were flipped over when we scanned them''), and put them on CDs. Hey!
It's IBM's call as to whether they want to provide the source code in that
format. Right, Blake? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Any
bets on how loud SCO would be squawking if the had to deal with that?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Blake Stowell, what a guy. - Authored by: J.F. on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 01:57 PM EST
- Blake Stowell, what a guy. - Authored by: turambar386 on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 02:12 PM EST
- Blake Stowell, what a guy. - Authored by: Cambo on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 02:19 PM EST
- Blake Stowell, what a guy. - Authored by: turambar386 on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 02:24 PM EST
- Blake Stowell, what a guy. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 02:44 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: darthaggie on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 01:37 PM EST |
| ZDNET reports that SCO's Blake Stowell says Northrop Grumman was not the one
Fortune 500 company that signed up for SCO's license to run Linux. Northrop
declined to comment when asked. My brain finds it hard to put those two
sentences together. Why would Northrup have a problem saying they aren't the
company, if they aren't? But if they aren't, why did IBM subpoena
them?
"No comment" is always a good answer, if you're afraid of leaking
information because of what isn't said. It may also be a case that
Northrup hadn't actually decided what it should say, should the company feel the
need to comment.
I'm starting to think that Northrup either cancelled or
shelved a Linux project after they got their letter(s) from SCO. IBM will
probably use that as evidence of Lanham Act violations. But that's just a WAG
(wild assed guess), I have no special information or sources.
I looked up
the relevant (I think) section of Lanham (USC 15, Section 1125), and in
(a)(1)(b) were we see that Any person who, on or in connection with any goods
or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name,
symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of
origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading
representation of fact, which in commercial advertising or promotion,
misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of
his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is
or is likely to be damaged by such act.
The emphasis is mine, but that
strikes me as being a decent summary of SCO's FUD factory. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 01:40 PM EST |
According to this is a very old article SCO originally wanted $25m from IBM, and
joint marketing of a combined UNIX/Linux product:
http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/34882.htm
Now this is from Maureen O'Gara, and this part says an anonymous source in SCO
told her this.
In the same article, she also says an anonymous source in SCO told her about the
real deal with Boies financially. Today's 8-K reveals this part she was exactly
right - months and months before most of the rest of the press who were still
following the contingency line of McBride.
The joint marketing thing also makes sense. Check the McBride interview (I think
vnunet but not certain) from about June. He definitely said IBM could have done
a bunch of things to resolve it including "joint marketing".
Next look at the Microsoft deal. It is also for approx $25m.
Meanwhile we know SCO began taking actions to profit from the future inflation
of their stock price as early as mid 2002. These include buying back stock at
low prices, and hiring Morgan Keegan to sell stock (at higher prices) in future,
as well as renaming the company.
ORIGINAL SCO STRATEGY
Thus we now understand SCO's original strategy in full. They began planning
this in 2002.
1. Use future stock artificial inflation to generate money for Canopy, SCO
executives, and operating cash to keep the company running.
2. Hit various UNIX licensees etc., for fees. IBM is on the list (litigation).
MS was probably on the list. Sun may or may not have been. SGI was added at some
point, possibly later.
The amount of fees was unspecified, as this was plain extortion.
MS probably paid $25m to make them go away.
IBM probably refused $25m and told SCO to get stuffed. SCO had figured that IBM
would settle because they would rather risk even a remote threat of "AIX
revokation" was better than paying a small amount. It may be that SCO
simply expected to shout $1bn, IBM to come back with what SCO considered a
derisory number (e.g. $25m), and then to be surprised but locked-in when SCO
accepted it.
Why did SCO not name a number?
(a) That's not good negotiating (let your opponent start, if SCO start the
bidding, IBM work down from that, whereas IBM might come up with a higher number
on their own)
(b) As the strategy changed - see next part - they couldn't
3. Having got some kind of settlement from IBM etc., they may or may not have
intended to "own" Linux. Even if they didn't, they still have done
pretty well on items 1 and 2.
If you consider they wanted IBM to sell a combined SCO UNIX/Linux offering, you
can see this is the upper edge of their plan.
WHAT WENT WRONG
The strategy changed, when IBM didn't come back with a derisory settlement
offer, that SCO could leap on.
They were therefore stuck with the stock inflation element of the plan.
They then had to claim the $1bn (later $3bn) and Linux IP licensing strategy
were real. For a while (probably till June) they thought they could pressure
IBM by shouting about AIX and customer liability and audits. Remember this is
what Darl said SCO's best strategy was in Fortune magazine.
It's gone even more wrong, now it's revealed that they have no evidence.
WHY THIS IS CREDIBLE
It's the only thing that explains how they could hire Morgan Keegan for equity
financing in 2002, when the stock price was in the toilet.
It's similar to the strategy Darl pursued in suing IKON in 1997. On the day his
lawyer filed the court papers, the lawyer also felt it necessary to issue a
press release which went out via Reuters. Just like the IBM suit, it was a nice
round number (in IKON it was for $10m).
Darl worked with Morgan Keegan to get equity financing at PointServe. This
financing is or was the subject of subsequent litigation. When Darl moves to
Caldera, Sean Wilson comes along for the ride too, and then Morgan Keegan
suddenly becomes Caldera's investment banker.
*ALL* the anonymous little bird at SCO/Caldera told Maureen O'Gara, since
January have been exactly right, not just in this article but elsewhere. She
really has a source.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 01:40 PM EST |
PJ, you've mentioned work on Linux done by Mr. Hellwig. You might find this
peice of news interesting, to keep record of Caldera/SCO employees (former and
current) contributions. SGI's XSF is now merged into Linux 2.4 product release
(as opposed to being a seperate patch)
KernelTrap and slashdot too
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 01:47 PM EST |
From Windows & .net Ragazine
http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/41093/41093.html
It is scary how little actual work went into this coverage. From the opening of
the first paragraph "SCO revealed this week that a judge ruled in favor of
IBM . . ." to the opening of the last "But don't worry about SCO, .
. ." it is pitiful.
Thank you .net[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: minkwe on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 02:40 PM EST |
Isn't it unusually silent in Delaware? What is happening at the second front?
---
There are only two choices in life. You either conform the truth to your desire,
or you conform your desire to the truth. Which choice are you making?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: turambar386 on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 02:42 PM EST |
New article from PCPro. I
can't seem to link directly to it, but it's on their front page. A
snippet:
"SCO has announced a new agreement which gives its investors
effective control over the company's future legal efforts."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 02:45 PM EST |
Well, I just saw an AP article (via yahoo)..
Starts out OK, but definitely carrying SCO "spin" as it goes on..
(Where's O'Reilly when you need him!?!)
Steve[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: koa on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 03:12 PM EST |
I'm a bit curious as to what we (public) will be allowed to see (assuming) when
SCO releases clear and concise source code line for line and file for file?
I imaging that IBM will be under legal obligation to keep the specifics under
its hat, however, where does this leave the whole community? How much
information can IBM 'leak' so as to give us a general idea of what SCO tells
them without violating a NDA? -and if it does- I dont want to be a conspiracy
theorist or anything but what if SCO is banking on sending IBM some file and
line information with the hopes that IBM will leak it to the open source
community and in effect 'brak the law'? And damage IBM's counter-suit?
---
...move along...nothing to see here...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kbwojo on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 03:13 PM EST |
There could be that another reason that Northrop Grumman received its
subpoena. It could be the same reason that Schwartz Communications received its
subpoena. Remember they both received their subpoena at the same time that Sun
Microsystem received its subpoena. Guess what, both Northrop Grumman and
Schwartz Communications have ties with Sun Microsystem.
It was easy
to find out that Northrop Grumman was associated with Sun. I just did a netcraft
look up and found that they are running their servers on Solaris, Thus Northrop
is a Sun customer.
It was a little harder to find the link between
sun and Schwartz Communications. I started at the Schwartz Communications web site and
didn't find anything. I looked up their list of clients and found nothing that
points them to Sun.
Then I decided to read their Brochure and
found that on Page 6 and Page 9 they have Sun listed as one of their
clients.
So we can see there is a common link to Sun and because they
were all served at the same time it makes sense that they could all be tied
together. Then again there may be nothing to any of this at all, I just wanted
to point out that there could be other possible reason's for the subpoena's.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 06:05 PM EST |
4. If they do it primarily as a publicity stunt, what can Groklaw
start doing now to dampen any effect this stunt may
have?
Nothing. From this point on the more they bluster, the
less people will believe them. The tipping point came today. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobh on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 06:21 PM EST |
What took Wall Street so long? Seriously, why has Wall Street been so
slow to catch up with the rest of us?
We need to recognize that
unless someone spends a fair amount of time looking into this case, it is very
difficult to understand what is going on.
A number of factors conspire to
cause this:
- The level of fact-checking in the press is abominable. It is
difficult to find a single article about this case that does not contain at
least one glaring error of fact. SCO has patents. The IBM case is about
copyrights. AIX is an open source operating system. ZDNet couldn't even get the
name of the Judge right in its article about Friday's hearing. The cumulative
effect is that a great many people "know" things that are not so. Garbage in,
garbage out: it's not just for computers.
- SCO has treated the
proceedings as a PR event, while IBM has not. This has the practical consequence
that 90% of the press coverage is being drawn from materials provided by SCO.
There is an article out there right now in which "SCO reveals" that a judge has
ordered it to produce its evidence. If you go by "what you read in the papers,"
your head is full of SCO press releases and little else.
- There is the
usual interjection of deliberate falsehoods into the information stream by
Microsoft-funded cutouts. The head of the de Toqueville Institute, Tech Central
Station, and the usual army of "astroturfers" have all sprayed FUD and
falsehoods over the landscape. People in the computer business have developed an
eye for this, but it may be news to Wall Streeters that this goes on. Distortion
of the nature of the GPL seems to be the chief aim of the Microsoft-funded
efforts, but mixed in with everything else, they make it difficult to guess what
is happening.
The Orwellian nightmare, of course, is that 90% of
what I hear in the rest of the news is of similar quality. I follow this case,
so I know BS when I see it. But I can't possibly keep up on every field of human
endeavor at the same level of detail. To watch this unfold has been truly
frightening.
In 1974, the Firesign Theater released a comedy album called
"Everything You Know is Wrong." It's not so funny when you see it happen for
real. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skuggi on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 08:21 PM EST |
"We should make it clear that we believe very strongly
that a company should protect its intellectual property
when there is need, but we also believe that there are
reasonable way to do this."
"Now that I read it, the first sentence and the entire
tone is a bit odd. Is that saying what it seems to be
saying, that they were hoping for a more prolonged
confusion to the Linux and UNIX community? I must have
read it wrong. That makes no sense."
---
I think he is only saying that SCO way is unreasonable and
without any proof and real companies dont go this path
unless they have solid proofs which SCO never had in the
first place.
-Skuggi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: trox on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 08:46 PM EST |
| If SCOX is going to be worth $185 per share you would think SCO upper
manegment would want to hold on to a little of it.
Dump...Dump
I would suppose
they are just not wise investors. (hah!!) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
