decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:25 PM EST

We've all had some thoughts about analysts and how they have been handling the SCO story, I venture to guess. But here is an opportunity to help them ask the right questions of SCO at Monday's 4th quarter earnings teleconference.

I have been asked what questions Groklaw would like asked. So fire away. I have a few myself.

Linux Journal is reporting that Blake Stowell says there will be no announcement of any copyright lawsuit on Monday:

"'We won't be announcing lawsuits Monday,' said SCO spokesperson Blake Stowell in a phone interview Friday. Stowell said that The SCO Group is, however, likely to make a different announcement 'Monday before the market opens'."

The teleconference will be on Monday at 11 AM Eastern time. Audio will be available at the start time here for those who only want to listen.

Here is an example of a question one person thinks analysts should ask. But you can ask whatever questions you like and I will forward them along.

On a different topic, you have got to read this article in ServerWatch. The author, Michael Hall, changed his mind about the urgency of indemnification for Linux. Why? For one thing, he received a couple of well-written letters that made him think the matter through again. It's Groklaw's dream come true:

"So while we continue to think it's not a bad thing for companies like HP and Sun to offer customers assurances about their legal status in the form of indemnification, it seems less pressing than it did initially. . . .

"Now that we are removed from the breathless press releases and general air of uncertainty SCO's worked hard to promote during the past year, we're less certain we'd be so quick to demand guarantees from Red Hat or anyone else."

Just thought you'd like to know that sometimes it works.


  


What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday? | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:42 PM EST
QUESTION:

What is the projected End-User Linux License Revenue going to be the next
quarter?

The reason for this question is that I d not believe it has an answer, so it
will be fun to watch (listen) the side-step-dancing...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Regarding Licenses
Authored by: fjaffe on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:47 PM EST
Precisely what license rights did Microsoft and Sun obtain for their
multi-million dollar fees, and does SCO have any proof that these license
transactions were not shams merely to provide SCO funding to pursue its lawsuit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
Authored by: rand on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:47 PM EST
How far along are you in producing the documents required by the court order of
December 12th?

or better

Has your legal team produced any of the documents required by the December 12th
court order, and if not, when do they plan to start producing them?

---
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly an aircraft...they were the first
to LAND an aircraft. (IANAL and whatever)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Regarding RH Suit
Authored by: fjaffe on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:49 PM EST
Since SCO has recently claimed plans to sue end-users, why should we believe
that there is no "controversy" to form the basis of the Red Hat
lawsuit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
Authored by: koa on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:52 PM EST
QUESTION:

At what point do they expect David Boies to enter a statement to the public or
the court? Will we be expecting Kevin McBride to be doing all the talking and
David doing all the paperwork?


---
...move along...nothing to see here...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Status of Caldera IPO Shareholder suit?
Authored by: miss_cleo_psy4u on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:53 PM EST
What is the status of the Caldera IPO Shareholder suit?
Any ongoing legal expenses associated with it?
Any settlement options being discussed?
Which legal firm handles this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

    What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
    Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:02 PM EST
    Question:

    What is the total number of shares of SCO stock today?
    If needed, can SCO simply create more shares and issue them?
    How do the current stockholders feel about their owned stock
    being diluted in that fashion?


    ---
    "When I say something, I put my name next to it."

    -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Source Development
    Authored by: penfold on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:03 PM EST
    Is there any open source code in your properitery Unix products? Considering the
    company's history of developing both open source and properitary products, what
    measures do you have in place to ensure code from one doesn't contaminate the
    other?

    I am interested in this because I remember reading some people were suspicious
    of thei LKP module, and as far as I know, SCO never acknowledged the allegation,
    much less answered yes or no.

    We have heard (long before the lawsuit) about the measures IBM has in place, and
    after reading the article about SCO open source development I would like to hear
    about SCO's measures.

    ---
    I'm not kidding, that boy's head is like Sputnik; spherical but quite pointy at
    parts! He'll be crying himself to sleep tonight, on his huge pillow.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
    Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:03 PM EST
    How does the rest of the SCO Board of Directors feel about how the SCO vs IBM
    lawsuit has been handled so far?


    ---
    "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee,
    "Sports Night"

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:12 PM EST
    QUESTION:
    <sarcasm>
    Who is your current CTO ?
    </sarcasm>

    <serious>
    Assuming that SCO still intends to be a player in the OS market (with upcoming
    OpenServer version and new push into Web Services), what should a prospective
    investor or customer make of the fact that SCO's developments staff is
    currently is only {$insert_figure_here} percent of the company, and the company
    currently lacks a CTO (and this for $months months now) ?
    </serious>

    l0t3k

    [ Reply to This | # ]

      What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
      Authored by: Scriptwriter on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:13 PM EST
      Unfortunately all the questions I can think of to ask sound like obvious trolls
      ("What's wrong with you guys?"). Ideally there would be some
      questions that would make the analysts listening in start thinking that maybe
      there are things SCO and their friends in the media aren't telling us.

      Here's one possibility: "You were ordered by Magistrate Justice Wells to
      identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that you are claiming
      form the basis of your action against IBM. How many such lines of code have you
      identified so far, and based on this preliminary number how many do you expect
      to submit by the 11th of January?"

      First off, this should plant in peoples' minds that SCO was being ordered to do
      this, and it wasn't just a coin toss. Second, if they do any weasel wording at
      all, it's going to look bad. I find it inconceivable that in a case like this,
      the CEO of the company would not want a status report every single morning on
      how the code discovery was going -- unless, of course, there was nothing to
      discover, and he knew it.

      And third, maybe, just maybe, any kind of non-specific response would help
      mitigate any boost the stock price might get from any good spin^Wnews given at
      the conference call. (It was down over 1% again today, I notice. A good start.)

      ---
      The clock is ticking, SCO. January 11th. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.

      irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Wlan and AMD64
      Authored by: DH on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:16 PM EST
      What is your schedule for the introduction of Wireless LAN, especially in the
      POS sector?

      Will you offer Open Server and Unix Ware for AMD64 Servers, and if so when will
      they full support AMD's 64 Bit features?

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
      Authored by: Lev on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:17 PM EST
      Should you succeed in invalidating the GPL in courts, do you plan to remove GPL
      software, such as Samba, from your products? If yes, what is the projected
      effect on your revenue in that scenario?

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
      Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:18 PM EST
      Hi, Darl. You're brother Kevin recently represented SCO at the discovery
      hearing with IBM on Dec. 5. Is he on contingency also, and, if so, what is the
      arrangement for that? If not, what payment arrangement does SCO have with Kevin?
      It seems unusual, to say the least, for a company with David Boies as its lawyer
      to instead send the CEO's brother to a hearing against IBM. Would you care to
      comment on that?

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
      Authored by: fcw on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:18 PM EST
      When will you be filing the additional suit against IBM that Mr McBride
      announced to the court?

      [ Reply to This | # ]

        What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
        Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:33 PM EST
        Do you intend to comply with the recent cort order to provide IBM a detailed
        list of infringing source code?

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
        Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:36 PM EST
        "Just what do you think you're doing, Darl...?"

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Why don't you specify the code?
        Authored by: webster on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:36 PM EST
        Stonewalling has hurt you in court. It has villianized you before the Open
        Source comunity and more and more the general public. It will also eviscerate
        any claim for damages should you prove infringement in Court. Why are you doing
        it?

        ---
        webster

        Recent Windows refugee

        [ Reply to This | # ]

          What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
          Authored by: rweiler on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:37 PM EST
          Given that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of research papers on SMP,
          NUMA, and RCU, how do you expect to show that these technologies were secret?
          How do expect to show that Linux developers could not have added these features
          without IBM's help?


          Does SCO hold any patents on SMP, NUMA, or RCU technologies?

          When is the next non-blackout period during which SCO insiders will be allowed
          to sell their shares?

          Do you expect any future licensing revenue from Microsoft and Sun, and if so,
          when, how much, and under what circumstances?

          Given that the value of the Linux franchise has been dwindling rapidly over
          time, and that licenses for a large prercentage of expected future earnings had
          been sold by Novell long before Caldera acquired SCO, how did you arrive at a
          valuation of 1 billion for the rights you hold today?

          Given that it has been shown that SCO's noncompete clause with Novell expired
          upon change of ownership, have you reconsidered your intent to sue Novell for
          violating that clause?


          ---
          Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
          being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
          Authored by: snorpus on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:42 PM EST
          Mr. McBride, I have two questions, sir:

          1) Since you have become CEO of SCO, you have concentrated on "monetizing" SCO's Intellectual Property (patents, copyrights, and trade secrets). Why did you choose that course, instead of turning that IP into marketable products?

          2) At one time, the predecessor companies to SCO made significant contributions to Linux, and were regarded as respected memmbers of the F/OSS community. In less than a year, you have managed to turn the remnants of 'old SCO" into a joke in the *nix community.How do you intend, long term, to regain the trust of the *nix community, or are you pinning your long term hopes on the "Linux licenses", which become value-less once you afford the Linux community the opportunity to "mitigate the damages".

          ---
          73/88 de KQ3T

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
          Authored by: D. on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:45 PM EST
          1) In FY2003 what percentage of SCOsource revenue came from Unix licesencing? Is
          this revenue one time or recurring?

          2) What is the legal specialty of (a)David Boies, (b) Mark Heisse, (c) Kevin
          McBride, (d) Mr. Hatch.

          3) In FY2003 what percentage of continuing operations revenues came from
          OpenServer, UnixWare, all other software products?

          4) Have you started rolling production of all documents ordered by Judge Wells?

          5) How many software developers does the SCO Group, employ? How many are charged
          with continuing development of (a) OpenServer? (b)UnixWare?, (c)All other
          software products?

          6) Does the SCO Group outsource software development? If so, where is this
          outsourced development performed?

          D.
          D.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

            What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
            Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:46 PM EST
            You keep saying that you are about to start suing Linux users. When are you
            going to actually file such a suit?

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            Contingency Fees and the RBC/Baystar Veto
            Authored by: mac586 on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:48 PM EST
            1. At the November 19 Teleconference, the word contigency was used more than a
            dozen times to describe the agreements between SCO and it's Legal team.

            Then, on December 8, 2003 SCO filed an 8-K with the SEC, that more accurately
            describes how the legal team will be paid.

            In hindsight, would you still refer to the agreement, which was signed after the
            November 19 teleconference, as a contingency plan?

            2. Can you please elaborate on the veto granted to the RBC and Baystar
            Investors as defined in the December 8, 2003 8-k SEC Filings?

            Can this veto power prevent SCO from filing and new lawsuits, or is it limited
            to approving any fees paid to the legal teams?

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            Constitution
            Authored by: hbo on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:57 PM EST
            You have claimed that the GPL is unconstitutional. Given that the constitution
            grants copyright protection to authors to control distribution of their works,
            how can you justify your view?

            ---
            "Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
            there" - Will Rogers

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            And a Question for the Groklaw Community
            Authored by: hbo on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:00 PM EST
            What happens to a GPL'd work once the underlying copyright expires? (I know, it
            never will at the rate we are going.)

            Like any other work, it becomes public domain, no?


            ---
            "Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
            there" - Will Rogers

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            Open Source
            Authored by: pyrite on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:01 PM EST
            Have you ever considered open sourcing the System V code? If not, why not? Do
            you forsee any point in the distant, or not so distant future, where this might
            be a possibility?



            [ Reply to This | # ]

            A Solution?
            Authored by: hbo on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:04 PM EST
            That's it! We get it through Darl McBride's thick skull that copyright
            extensions are evil because they perpetuate the anti-American GPL's force. Then
            we refocus his evil energy on the politicos to get the copyright extensions
            rolled back, so he can get his mits on Samba in 40 rather than 75 years! Ya
            think?

            ---
            "Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
            there" - Will Rogers

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            Think about the answers.
            Authored by: hamjudo on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:05 PM EST
            Let's avoid questions that are easy to avoid or have easy information free answers. We can also list possible excuses here. If the press can say "as predicted on Groklaw, they used excuses 14, 23 and 47", then they are less likely to use them.

            On the other hand, some excuses are probably justified. So, this isn't the right venue to ask those questions.

            Excuses, please add more, or reword for better effect.

            1. We have no more questions.
            2. Sorry, bad connection.
            3. We ran out of time.
            4. The phone system is being attacked.
            5. We can't answer that, attorney/client privilege.
            6. We can't comment on an ongoing court case.
            7. We don't have the data with us.
            8. The answer would take too long.
            9. Our new CTO will answer that, once we hire one.
            10. We'd like to plead the fifth
            11. Executive compensation plans are competive, but the actual details are private

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
            Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:12 PM EST
            It has been well documented that several key contributions to the Linux kernel
            involving SMP technologies, which among others you claim is a function
            improperly added to Linux, were done so by a former SCO employee, Tigran
            Aivazian, with the full knowledge and support of his superiors while at SCO.
            Would you care to either acknowledge or repudiate that his contributions of this
            functionality were done so with the approval of SCO management?

            ---
            LINUX - Visibly superior!

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
            Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:14 PM EST
            Why give them wiggle room at all? Be direct.

            Why did SCO lie about their intentions to coutersue Red
            Hat in a press release?

            Why did SCO lie about their intentions and rights to audit
            AIX users?

            Why did SCO settle against LinuxTag if they had proof that
            code was copied from Unix into Linux?

            Why won't SCO sell linux licenses even when they have
            people willing to pay for them since this is revenue and
            instead do a PIPE deal with Baystar?



            If you give them any room to make statements about how
            they "feel" something is going, they are just going to lie
            about it. Ask them directly about their actions
            contradicting their statements. If you don't pin them
            down, they'll just ooze out of your grip.

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
            Authored by: Bill The Cat on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:20 PM EST
            Ask the directly why they are continuing to use Open Source code in their
            products and why they are blatantly violating the GPL license? How is it that
            they feel it is completely ethical and legal to use software such as Apache,
            Samba and others while challenging the legality of that same exact GPL license.



            ---
            Bill Catz -
            "The number of UNIX installations has grown to ten, with more
            expected." -- UNIX Programmers Manual, 2nd Ed. June, 1972

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
            Authored by: pbarritt on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:22 PM EST
            Many of the issues in the lawsuit seem to come from the
            work done by the members of Project Monterey. Since several
            of the contracts, agreements and side letters pertaining to
            ownership of the UNIX code base have been entered as exhibits,
            do you plan to enter any of the Project Monterey agreements
            as exhibits and if so, when will that occur?

            Can you tell us the current status of Project Monterey and
            name the current participating members?

            ---
            bash: fortune: unexpected end of life...

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            Oh gosh, where to start...
            Authored by: Nathan Hand on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:23 PM EST

            Q: SCO has asserted that the General Public License, as used by the Linux kernel, is preempted by federal copyright law. Under what license is SCO distributing the Samba software product?

            Q: SCO owns no patents, trademarks or trade secrets related to Linux or UNIX. Which intellectual property laws does SCO intend to enforce against end-users so as to charge them licensing fees?

            Q: The Linux copyright owners (eg, Linus Torvalds) have repeatedly stated that they want disputed code removed from Linux so it can remain as a free software product. What steps will SCO be taking to effect the speedy and complete removal of the disputed code from Linux?

            Q: SCO has accused Linux developers of not respecting SCO's intellectual property. How does SCO respond to claims that SCO is not respecting the intellectual property of Linux developers such as Linus Torvalds?

            Q: The General Public License, as used by the Linux kernel, is incompatible with the licensing arrangement that SCO has created; the GPL does not permit binary-only licensing. How does SCO intend to resolve this licensing conflict?

            Q: SCO has accused Linux developers of "stealing" UNIX methods such as RCU. How does SCO respond to observations by industry analysts that none of SCO's products actually use the RCU method?

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
            Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:25 PM EST
            Do you intend on remaining commited to the UnitedLinux consortium, especially in
            view of Novell's planned purchase of SuSe?

            Scott

            ---
            LINUX - Visibly superior!

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            • Boring? - Authored by: jmccorm on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:19 AM EST
            What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
            Authored by: trox on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:30 PM EST
            Since a valid answer to anything case related is not going to happen, I would like to ask how much they like PJ right about now.

            Don't worry PJ likes/loves come and go but respect lasts forever!

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
            Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:31 PM EST
            What I would "like" to ask:
            How would you feel if you developed part of the Linux kernel and a Utah claim
            jumper showed up and demanded payment for your hard work, somnething they did
            not own.

            What I would ask:
            Is there any chance SCO will drop this claim of Linux and rejoin the open source
            movement.
            (Turn away from the dark side)

            Why did your finance dept quit?
            (Got a little SEC audit?)

            Does SCO intend to indemnify users of SCO software products against lawsuits
            from IBM patent violations?

            Ok, so, I cannot come up with any valid questions.
            I am not sure I would really want to speak to SCO at all.
            We all have seen the way SCO twists any statement to satisfy their own warped
            view of the world, Why ask SCO anything.
            I just needed to rant.

            I guess we should all pray for SCO to see the error of their ways, or barring
            that pray for their souls.
            (This IS Christmas after all)
            As Tiny Tim said:"God Bless us, every one"

            ps: PJ you ROCK!



            ---
            Norman

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            Question concerning copyright infringement
            Authored by: mac586 on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:35 PM EST
            I have a question concerning copyright infringements.

            Darl McBride, on 2003-07-21, stated that

            "Although it started off as a contracts problem, as we've gone in and done our full analysis of the code base, it is very clear that we have a copyright problem with the code that's in Linux today."

            If we fast forward to Dec 5, Kevin McBride stated to Judge Wells:

            "Your Honor, I will proffer to the Court that we are filing a second amended complaint that has copyright infringement claims, and will be filed within the coming few days or no less than a week"

            Have you filed an amended complaint to include copyright infringement?

            Why has it taken so long for SCO to address copyright claims in the IBM case?

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            SGI settled now?
            Authored by: miss_cleo_psy4u on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:35 PM EST
            We haven't heard anything more on SGI since fall.
            Are the issues SCO had with SGI all settled now?
            Has SCO stopped pursing the revocation of SGI's Unix license?

            Followup:
            We understand that SGI did a massive code review and only
            found a small set of code which might have a potential to be
            interpreted as infringing, but they removed them anyway.

            If SGI was cleared, does this mean Red Hat can assume SCO
            has no controversy with them and that SCO has no reason to
            pursue litigation agains them?

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            What about Boies and ethics
            Authored by: p0ssum on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:41 PM EST
            Recent developments in Florida have found David Boies the target of ethics
            charges leveled by a judge. Does this at all shake your confidence in the lawyer
            you have chosen to lead your IP infringment claims?

            ---
            There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand binary and
            those that do not.

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            Indimnification
            Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:43 PM EST
            Since SCO has stated their intent to attempt to extort monies from owners of
            Linux based on decades-old claims of IP infringement, and since SCO continues to
            distribute copies of the software that they say infringes, will SCO be willing
            to indemnify SCO's customers from similar actions from other companies that may
            discover similar properties?

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
            Authored by: jtsteward on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:45 PM EST
            A couple serious, a couple sarcastic

            1. What where you thinking?

            2. Did you ever think about reducing the price of Unixware/OpenServer to
            compete? The street price of UnixWare and OpenServer are about 4 times the price
            as Solaris X86.

            3. Assuming you are in business when all litagation is complete, do you intend
            to distribute Linux in the future?

            4. Did you ever consider a 1 price license structure for Unixware/OpenServer? I
            checked pricing and building a system with all the proper options was difficult
            at best.

            5. Why did the web site change so much during the rumored DDOS attack?

            6. Why did the Linux source disapear from the FTP site during same rumored
            attack?

            7. Why do you still distribute Skunkware and other F/OSS software?

            8. Can you show the source for the LKP, please?

            9 If you want your day in court why are you ducking RedHat?

            10. What where you thinking?

            11. Did Sun and MS rollover when you said pay us 25 mil or we will sue? I assume
            the answer is yes. Did you try the same thing with IBM, thinking they would pay
            you 25 mil also? When they balked did you threaten AIX thinking they would not
            chance losing the customer base using AIX? Did you poop your pants when they did
            not settle when you filed suit, and countersued on top of that?

            11a. Do you have nightmares of IBM lawyers darkening the sky over Utah?


            ALSO, the SCOX board on yahoo mentioned that they got Groklawed!
            http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
            mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=73614&thr=73592&cur=73592&dir
            =d



            ---
            -------------------------------------------------
            Darl needs more bullets, he keeps hitting his foot but he won't go down

            [ Reply to This | # ]

            What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
            Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:45 PM EST
            SCO has named JFS as one of the technologies that IBM contributed improperly to
            Linux. Since the Linux version of JFS was originally developed for OS/2, does
            SCO regard OS/2 as a derivative of Unix? If so, how will SCO monetize that
            claim?

            Scott McKellar
            http://home.swbell.net/mck9/sco/

            [ Reply to This | # ]

              Insider Trading
              Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:03 PM EST
              Me?? "Given that all your Vice Presidents -- all company "insiders -- have been selling off there SCO holdings as well as cashing in their stock options do you, your Vice Presidents, your Board of Directors, or anyone associated with either SCO Group or Canapy know of any ongoing SEC investigation concerning illegal Insider Stock Trading? YES or NO" And if his tone was too strident oe questioning I'd then follow it up with, "So you are denying that you have NO knowledge that the SEC is conducting an investigation in SCO's insider trading actions?" This question is designed to try and shake the tree so to speak to see if there is indeed an ongoing SEC investigation that is going on. The way this question gets answered would indeed be a clue.

              [ Reply to This | # ]

              Ask SCO?
              Authored by: kberrien on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:08 PM EST
              Analyists and users of SCO operating systems have noted the apparent shift from
              software development towards litigation. SCO has given decision making powers
              to parties outside the software business as a result of all this legal
              activity.

              Will SCO's Unix products continue to be developed? Has SCO experienced any
              decline in 3rd party relationships with other companies? What about SCO today
              should make SCO Unix customers decline to prepair a three year exit strategy
              from SCO as has been recommended by analyists.

              [ Reply to This | # ]

              • Ask SCO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:20 PM EST
              What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
              Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:08 PM EST
              When do you plan on initiating lawsuits against end users of Linux, and how does
              this fit in with the provisions of the GPL?

              ---
              -What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.

              [ Reply to This | # ]

              Top of my head
              Authored by: roxyb on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:20 PM EST
              1. Could you please clarify the relationship your different Law firms have to each other regarding roles, subordination and payment of fees from SCO as well as who is representing whom in what litigation?
              2. Is the dispute with Novell (regarding copyrghts, patents and ownership) settled so that both parties have an agreement?
              3. What percentage of revenues do you forecast will be based on SCOSource licensing in the next three year period?
              4. Do you consider Services as a way forward for SCO?
              5. Does it exist a contingency plan in the event that the current lawsuits are lost? If yes, could we have a three year forecast for such a scenario?

              Roland Buresund

              ---
              --
              I'm Still Standing...

              [ Reply to This | # ]

                Keep it financial
                Authored by: blang on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:34 PM EST
                Remember that almost all of these analysts are financial types.

                They don't care much about the intricacies of the lawsuit, or if Darl is good
                or evil or if SCO is going to kill linux or not.

                I would focus on the amandments to the 50 million loan agreements, and the
                surrounding accounting, some of the insider trading. Especially it would be nice
                to bring to the light the contradicting information about when the insiders knew
                what, regarding these options grants, and litigation plans.

                Why did they need 2 extra weeks figure out the booking of the PIPE and the Boies
                "contigency"? Isn't a PIPE more like a loan (with dividend). Did
                RBC agree that such a placement could be consider a stock sale? Did RBC object
                to Boies receiving a 20% of every dollar coming into SCO related to IP rights?

                Why did they early on state that Boies had the case on contigency, but it later
                turned out that Boies & Co were billing at a 33% discounted rate. Why was
                this not announced on the press conference where that expanded
                "partnership" was announced?

                Is RBC and Boies really in agreement about the new rules? Refer to Boies
                response to the changes, which were far from assertive.

                Did RBC & Co know about the nature of these contigencies before offering the
                PIPE financing?

                Then have a round about insider sales.

                Especially regarding the generous grants of options just before SCO started the
                ball rolling. And also the timing.

                When did insiders know that there was ging to be litigation?

                When did SCO first contact Boies & co to talk about this IP litigation.

                A press release earlier this year stated that executives were selling options to
                offset tax expenses. Exactly how much taxes is mr Bench owing?

                Has there been ANY (as much as one) serious request from companies to sign on
                with SCOS new linux licencing scheme?

                Will legal expenses incurred during the SCOsource program also be billed at the
                33% discounted rate?

                What is the currently hourly rate being billed by Boies & Co, and how many
                hours does SCO expect to use for going after SCOsource licenses? What is the
                current run rate of the non-IBM related legal expenses?

                BS stated recently in the press that SCOG had been granted confidentiality in
                court regarding the infringing linux code. Were these statements based on a
                recent contact/agreement with the magistrate court, or was he just referring to
                the standard agreements that were drawn up before discovery started?

                How is discovery going?

                Does SCO feel confident that they will be able to provide discovery within those
                30 days according to the motions that IBM were granted, or is SCO going to
                present documentation on why they can't comply?

                Then to Darl's compensation:

                There are rewards to be granted McBride in case of 4 subsequent profitable
                quarters. Do you expect this to happen soon? And specifically, are we talking
                about operating profit (excluding one time items such as the MS license) ,
                proforma earnings, or GAAP ernings?






                [ Reply to This | # ]

                What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:37 PM EST
                Quite simple, actually.
                Please identify one line of code, by file and line number, in Linux that
                undeniably, inescapably, absolutely belongs to SCO and was provably put in
                Linux without SCO's permission in a traceable manner.
                You've said there are millions. You said you're confident you're going to win
                billions in damages. It'll cost you so very little, and you will gain so much
                positive PR to counteract the negative vibes you've been spewing everywhere.
                You can't buy better advertising than that for ten times the money.
                Just one line.

                [ Reply to This | # ]

                What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                Authored by: aaron on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:39 PM EST
                Question:

                SCO claims that the GPL is invalid. The GPL is a grant which functions as
                a lessening of the strictures of copyright. If the GPL is invalid, under
                whose authority is SCO distributing code, e.g. Samba, for which they
                nether own the copyright nor are otherwise licensed to reproduce or
                distribute?

                -aaron

                [ Reply to This | # ]

                What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                Authored by: John on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:41 PM EST
                If SCO is so confident that it can demonstrate that its IP has been stolen by
                IBM and the Linux community, why is it that all its insider trading since June
                has been only sales totalling about $3.8 millions.

                According to http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=SCOX

                Reginald Charles Broughton, Senior Vice President
                18 transactions about $1,431,200
                Michael P. Olson, Vice President
                11 transactions about $924,734
                Larry Gasparro, Vice President
                3 transactions about $484,659
                Robert K Bench, chief financial officer
                5 transactions about $448,180
                Jeff F. Hunsaker, Vice president
                6 transactions about $350,000
                Michael Sean Wilson
                4 transactions about $136,920

                In all, 57 insider transactions since June, every one a divestiture. This looks
                suspicious, do you know something we don't? Are you expecting the share price
                to crash soon?



                ---
                JJJ

                [ Reply to This | # ]

                What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                Authored by: jtsteward on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:00 PM EST
                You have indicated that 20% of the code is owned by SCO
                That means that $139.80 of a $699 license is yours.
                What do you plan to do with the other $559.20?

                ---
                -------------------------------------------------
                Darl needs more bullets, he keeps hitting his foot but he won't go down

                [ Reply to This | # ]

                What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:02 PM EST
                Question: Why won't you be open and honest with the Linux kernel and open
                source community in outlining each and every supposéd IP infringement? We
                don't want your code (if it is in there as you suggest).

                Dave

                [ Reply to This | # ]

                The Protective Order and Barring of the Public to Acess of the Hearings
                Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:06 PM EST
                Here is a question: "Inasmuch as LINUX is a PUBIC operating system; and inasmuch as you have publicly threatened to sue an enduser; and inasmuch that the end user has a right to DEFEND him/her/it-self; and inasmuch that anyone has acces the sourcecode; and inasmuch as anyone can recompile the kernal so as to remove any questionable files that you alledge contains your "valuable" IP so as to produce a CUSTOM kernel that contains NONE of your IP; and inasmuch part of you complaint against IBM is based on tort law which requires that YOU provide the person or organization advanced notification to allow them a chance to REMOVE the infringing code in question; and inasmuch as you have FAILED to provide the PUBLIC the chance to remove to offending code so that they can AVIOD costly litigation; and inasmuch as you willing and knowingly distributed LINUX under the GPL, and still do as well as other GPLed software to which the PUBLIC has code access; and inasmuch as you have made available to analysts -- some who did not sign your draconian NDA -- and thus the PUBLIC press; PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR RATIONAL FOR NOT ALLOWING THE PUBLIC ACCESS WITH SPECIFICTY TO THE FILES AND LINES OF CODE IN QUESTION SO THAT THEY AS WELL AS YOU CAN AVIOD COSTLY LITIGATION?" WHY ARE YOU INSISTING ON BARING THE PUBLIC TO THE HEARING ON A HIGH PROFILE CASE IN WHICH THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE AND VESTED INTEREST BY REQUESTING THAT THE CODE AND ALL MATTERS IN REGARDS TO THE CODE, BE PLACED UNDER A PROTECTIVE ORDER?

                [ Reply to This | # ]

                What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:06 PM EST
                Question:

                If,as you say the GPL is unconstitional, why is SCO still offering Linux and
                open source products under a GPL license? If you contend that the GPL is
                unconstitutional and bad for proprietary business and you are absolutely certain
                that you are legally right, then why not put your money where your mouth is and
                distribute all of the open sourced GPL software that SCO currently sells to the
                public and businesses with the GPL copyright stripped?

                Dave

                [ Reply to This | # ]

                What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                Authored by: mflaster on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:14 PM EST
                I think that coming up with a question that an analyst might actually ask is
                pretty difficult. Nothing confrontational will work. ("Why is everything
                that comes out of your mouth a lie?" :-) ) Also, anything
                attacking/questioning the case won't work. ("That's in the hands of our
                lawyers. I'm very confident in our position. I can't further comment on it
                now.")

                The thing I can think of that might be the most enjoyable to explore would be
                the idea that SCO is presenting, that they've gotten a bunch of SCOsource
                revenue, and they expect the amount to continue to grow in a predictable
                fashion.

                1. What percentage of your SCOsource revenue to date has been from Sun and
                Microsoft?

                Even though we all know the answer to this, and it seems obvious, getting them
                to answer this at the conference might be the most damaging thing we can get
                them to say...

                2. (Some question to point out that the Sun/Microsoft money has nothing to do
                with Linux.) Was the Sun and Microsoft revenue related to their Linux
                installations? If so, what percent?

                3. Going forward, do you expect increasing revenues from Sun/Microsoft,
                decreasing revenues, or none?

                4. Can you give us some guidance on SCOsource revenue for Q1?

                I think just generally getting them to talk about SCOsource is a good idea.
                It's very important to financial analysts. After all, it's being presented as
                a major portion of SCO's revenue going forward. So I think it's very
                reasonable for analysts to ask about it. And I think that SCO can't put a good
                spin on it...

                Mike

                [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Legal Theory?
                  Authored by: BrianW on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:16 PM EST
                  By what legal theory, other than that you simply feel entitled, do you claim to
                  be able to charge Linux users a license fee without first having proved
                  infringement of your IP in a court of law?

                  Followup: By what legal theory, other than that you just want to “monetize”
                  Linux, do you claim to be able to compel Linux users to continue to use your
                  misappropriated IP in exchange for a license fee without first giving them the
                  opportunity to remove any misappropriated SCO code?

                  Second Followup (in case Darl wanders in answering the followup question): In
                  other words, how do you expect a judge to allow damages – or license fees - to
                  be paid when absolutely no mitigation on your part has taken place?

                  ---
                  //Brian
                  #define IANAL

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Ability To Sue and Collect from End Users
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:22 PM EST
                  Let's assume SCO by some miracl WINS its case against IBM. Given that part of
                  your case is based on tort law, which requires that you give the infringer a
                  chance via specific notification of the infringment a chance to remedy or remove
                  the infringing material in question which you have not done so, WHY do you
                  expect the court is going to award you vast sums of money when you yourself are
                  violating the law which REQUIRES YOU to help mitigate the damage?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: jeanph01 on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:32 PM EST
                  What will happen with SCO and its employees if you lose in court against IBM ?

                  Have you been offered jobs elsewere ?

                  Is Kevin always that bad ? ;^p

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Regarding future sales
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:36 PM EST
                  Q: Given that Microsoft’s researchers have gone on record saying that they are
                  studying Linux’s “development methods”. What do you believe would be an
                  adequate intellectual property license price per unit that SCO will receive when
                  Microsoft ships its next operating system in 2005?


                  It’s just like honey for a CEO...hmm I wonder what the financial press would
                  make of this one and it’s answer?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Questions for Monday...
                  Authored by: jkondis on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:41 PM EST
                  In reverse order, like a top-ten list...

                  5) Have you been approached by any large companies with buyout offers?

                  4) Are you planning on invoicing/suing government agencies, non-profit
                  orgainizations, libraries, universities and orphanages who have deployed Linux?

                  3) Are you planning on showing your evidence of IBM's infringement of SCO IP to
                  your shareholders so they can better evaluate SCOX's position in their
                  portfolio?

                  2) Since you plan on "revisiting" the BSD/AT&T settlement, are
                  you also planning on invoicing/suing distributors and users of BSD and its
                  derivatives, including Apple and their customers? Have you double-checked that
                  Apple hasn't inserted "millions of lines" of SCO IP into OSX?

                  And, finally,

                  1) Has the SEC, FTC, FBI, or any other government agency initiated contact with
                  SCO or told you that SCO is being investigated?

                  ...J

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:42 PM EST
                  "Given your stated contempt for the GPL, how can you assure the open
                  source developers you are not infringing their code by cherry picking certain
                  choice bits to include in your 'hidden source' offerings?"

                  "Is this a primary reason you go to somewhat hysterical lengths to deny
                  access to this dated so-called secret IP?"

                  "If you find lots of lines of similar code linux and your product, could
                  it not also mean that there is linux code IN YOUR product? See, look at all the
                  exact matches!"

                  The Prophet Lactus

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: pbarritt on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:47 PM EST

                  According to this press release:

                  LINDON, Utah, Aug 11, 2003 -- The SCO® Group (SCO)(Nasdaq: SCOX) today nnounced the signing of its first Intellectual Property Compliance License for SCO UNIX® Rights. This announcement comes less than a week after the commencement of the SCO IP License for Linux program. Terms of the deal and the Fortune 500 company name were not disclosed based on confidentiality provisions of the agreement, but a license was purchased for each of the Linux servers running their business.
                  SCO has signed at least one company for an IP license for Linux.

                  Were the confidentiality conditions of the agreement requested by you or the licensee? Can you explain the reasons for the confidentiality?

                  ---
                  bash: fortune: unexpected end of life...

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:05 PM EST
                  QUESTION:

                  Once the lawsuit is over and SCO has collected it's licensing fees from end users, what will be the development focus of the firm for future growth?

                  Mike A.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:07 PM EST
                  Do you offer indemnification protecting your customers from SCO lawsuits?

                  Would it be prudent for your shareholders to sell their SCO stock and invest in
                  Boise's lawfirm instead?

                  Exactly where did your para-legal find that Novel contract amendment and do you
                  protect your IP with the same care as your contracts?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Where did SCO get permission to distribute Linux?
                  Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:12 PM EST
                  SCO continues to allow downloads of Linux from its web site, long after actions
                  that some claim caused SCO to forfeit its rights under the GPL. Does SCO claim
                  that those actions did not breach the GPL and forfeit SCOs rights under the GPL?
                  If not, does SCO claim that the copyrights of thousands of Linux developers are
                  all unenforceable? If not, where did SCO get permission from the copyright
                  owners to distribute Linux?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: DaveF on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:14 PM EST
                  a) In the earnings statement for this last quarter, what portion of revenues and
                  expenditures are associated with the Linux licensing plan on how many units?

                  b) What's the growth forecast in this area for the coming FY and how does this
                  growth compare to that in the Unix sector?

                  ---

                  Imbibio, ergo sum

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: jeanph01 on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:23 PM EST
                  Did you expected your case to have that much press cover in the start ? Did you
                  noticed that this has helped people know about linux and the GPL like never
                  before ? Why are you using PR so often ? Why not try to be has low profile as
                  possible ?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: a_loon on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:33 PM EST
                  Here's what I would like to ask. (Maybe someone can put the setup more succinctly.)

                  * UnixWare is SCO's only significant software offering, and thus its only potential revenue stream other than IP licensing.

                  * Substantial portions of the code SCO alleges IBM to have misappropriated must be in UnixWare; otherwise, SCO could claim no damages from IBM for distributing different code.

                  * SCO has provided reams of source code as discovery, whether the relevant portions have been identified with specificity or not. Presumably IBM can isolate any sections of SCO code which are identical with or derived from code that has been released under the General Public License.

                  * A ruling that any substantial section of UnixWare code has been GPL'd by anyone, including SCO itself, renders UnixWare in its entirety vulnerable to demands by any copyright holders of GPL code in UnixWare (including IBM) that SCO either cease distributing UnixWare or release it under the GPL.

                  * It would not be necessary for the court to first order that the source code be opened. The fact of combination itself is sufficient to trigger the GPL summarily.

                  * Such a ruling would not be subject to appeal, since it would be a finding of fact rather than a question of law. SCO would immediately have to make a living providing legitimate services to satisfied customers as a GPL provider.

                  Question: what steps has SCO taken to preserve shareholder value under this scenario?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:36 PM EST
                  It has been widely reported that SCO distributes GPL
                  software, such as Samba, with its proprietary offerings.
                  How many GPL-licensed products are distributed with your
                  Unix products?

                  You have publically asserted on numerous occasions that
                  IBM should offer indemnification for Linux. Are you
                  offering indemnification for Samba and the other GPL
                  products that you distribute?

                  If not, how do you reconcile this apparent discrepancy,
                  particularly in view of the fact that IBM does not even
                  sell or distribute Linux?

                  Do you intend to remove all GPL software from future
                  versions of your products?

                  What measures are you currently taking to mitigate the
                  accrual of damages caused by the presence of your alleged
                  IP in the Linux kernel? (Indeed, what is the nature of
                  this IP: copyrights or patents?) Have you contacted
                  kernel developers in an effort to have any infringing code
                  removed from future kernels?

                  Many people believe that the reason behind your refusal to
                  publicly reveal the allegedly violating lines of Linux
                  kernel code is that you believe your code cannot compete
                  on its own technical merits, but must remain merged with
                  the work of others, against the wishes of those others, in
                  order for you to have a viable, revenue-generating product
                  (by charging license fees for Linux). It would seem that
                  if this alleged IP is truly worth 3 billion USD, its
                  removal from Linux would give your proprietary OS enough
                  of a competitive advantage to overcome the price
                  difference between UNIX and Linux in the minds of
                  enterprise customers, thus leading to increased UNIX sales
                  without the stigma associated with lawsuits. Can you
                  comment on this?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  OT: Replacing Boies? (Humorous)
                  Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:38 PM EST

                  I wish I could attribute this little gem, but the original Linux Journal poster posted anonymously. Enjoy.

                  ---
                  "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  DoSing affects
                  Authored by: echodots on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:39 PM EST
                  Did the DoS attack affect SCO on proving it's claims about IBM and Linux
                  infringing on their IP? If so, how, and if not, when do you plan on handing over
                  some information to the judge?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Can we have a sample?
                  Authored by: Paul Johnson on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:46 PM EST
                  The last time you exhibited a sample of Linux code that you claimed was
                  illegally copied from SCO, it was rapidly shown that it was derived from a
                  public source. This has led many to speculate that you have no real evidence.
                  To counter such speculation, could you give us another sample of copying that
                  supports your case? It only needs to be a few dozen lines out of the millions
                  you claim have been copied.

                  ---
                  These ideas and others like them can be had for $0.02 each from your friendly
                  local idealist.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Any BSD questions?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:49 PM EST
                  I didn't see any bsd questions..
                  kaycee77025

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:13 AM EST
                  With regards to the recent DDoS attacks allegedly plaguing SCO's network, please comment on the following:

                  1) Are you any closer to finding the perpetrators?

                  2) Given that SCO is a company that sells operating systems specifically for network servers and other high-end, security-intensive needs, do you believe that SCO has done an adequate job defending against these attacks?

                  3) Also given the above, do you not expect the recent attacks to affect your revenue projections for operating system sales? After all, as a recent article on InternetNews (http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3289321) states:

                  What has confused security experts is the fact the technology to combat a SYN flood attack has been available for years, and is a basic component for any network security program. It's uncertain why a publicly-traded company -- one beholden to shareholder scrutiny -- that has suffered two high-profile DDoS attacks already this year doesn't have tools in place to repel the attacks.

                  Colleen Shannon, a senior security researcher at the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), said that despite SCO's claims to the contrary, the attack wasn't a particularly sophisticated one.

                  "SCO called this a highly sophisticated attack," she said. "Without any special configuration, which SCO obviously doesn't have because they were affected by it a lot, it is a hard attack to defend. But it's really nothing new and there is technology to defend against it."

                  4) If you do not believe these facts will adversely affect your revenues, what basis do you have for these projections? How can you expect other organizations to come to you with their network security needs when, according to a well-respected network security organization, you can not defend against even a basic and well-known attack?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:17 AM EST
                  Have you been investigated by the SEC or state attorneys
                  general for stock fraud yet? How would that affect your
                  earnings report?

                  Are Darl McBride, Chris Sontag, and so forth, indemnified
                  by SCO in case they are personally liable for the false,
                  slanderous statements they've made about Linux and the
                  Linux community? How would that affect your earnings
                  report?

                  You have claimed that any release of SCO intellectual
                  property under the GPL was accidental and unauthorized.
                  You have claimed that there is SCO intellectual property
                  in Linux, which is released under the GPL. Why, then, are
                  you *still* releasing Linux freely, under the GPL (on your
                  FTP site) months after claiming that any release was
                  accidental? Doesn't this undermine your claim to have
                  released "only accidentally" a lot? When are you planning
                  to stop distributing it yourself?

                  How will it affect your earnings report when all the open
                  legal cases are decided with prejudice against you?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:22 AM EST
                  You have repeatedly claimed that you would sue Linux
                  users, Linux distributors, etc.

                  How,then, do you justify your claim in the Red Hat case
                  that you *aren't* threatening to sue them or their
                  customers?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  SCO FUD Bingo (or Buzz-Word Bingo)
                  Authored by: Newsome on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:45 AM EST
                  Anyone up for some Buzz-Word Bingo? It might make it less frustrating when SCO
                  doesn't actually answer any questions, and continues to spew FUD.

                  For Buzz-Word Bingo, we list all the weasel-words, phrases, and excuses that the
                  SCO execs have used in past calls. Then, everyone chooses 25 and puts them
                  randomly into a 5x5 grid. You win by getting 5 in a row first.

                  This bingo game can also help out during long graduation speeches, etc. In our
                  case, though, with the amount of FUD we expect from SCO, we may need to require
                  the winner to get all 25 boxes.

                  ---
                  Frank Sorenson

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Gotta Love these Questions...
                  Authored by: jkondis on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:48 AM EST
                  I love tone of some of the offerings posted here. It's like:

                  [setting: investor conference call with SCOG on Monday the 22nd]
                  "After you are arrested and sent to jail for fraud, conspiracy to commit
                  fraud, insider trading, racketeering, and uh, oh did I say fraud? yeah, after
                  you're rotting in jail you lying filthy pigs for all these crimes, does The SCO
                  Group have any plans for further equity sales?"

                  Of course, I'm not suggesting this, but surely has the flavor of the questions
                  on some people's minds and some of the offered questions almost sound like
                  this...

                  ...J

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: rjamestaylor on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:49 AM EST
                  Recalling public statements that Linux kernel 2.6.x was clean of IP issues, now that 2.6.0 is here does this not make your complaint vis-a-vis Linux users moot?

                  How do you reconcile strong and repeated pulic claims millions of lines of copied code in Linux with your statements in court that SCO does not know what code in Linux infringes SCO's IP?

                  As Novell enters the Linux distribution market with its Nterprise Linux Server and its purchase of SuSE, do you regret dumping your Linux business for the course you have chosen?

                  Your media campaign which was on fire through the summer seems to have petered out -- is this due to lack of operating capital?

                  You recently disclosed that Boies has an equity stake in SCO; with such a marquee legal talent on its side, what was the deciding factor that lead to Kevin McBride, an attorney not known for IP expertise who happens to be Darl's brother, respresenting SCO in court earlier this month?

                  What happened to the copyright amendment SCO declared it would file within a week of the court appearance earlier this month?

                  SCO's tatics have made it a pariah in the technology sector; assuming SCO prevails in court against IBM and RedHat, how will it ever gain the confidence of the industry? Is there any precedent for such a recovery of the tech sector's trust once it has been lost?

                  Do you regret making threats against Linux end users? ["No..."] Then, as a follow-up, why have you not followed through? ["Good response so far..."] How many individual entities have purchased Linux Binary licenses since they were announced? [...] Are you just making this up as you go along?

                  ---
                  SCO delenda est! Salt their fields!

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  "Twenty Questions" - plus
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:56 AM EST
                  Of course, they are only questions, but I think inquiring minds might want to
                  know:

                  1) How many of your current employees worked for other Canopy companies in the
                  Linux sector? What was the nature and extent of all of their collective Linux
                  contributions?

                  2) SCO agents assert the GPL distribution was "inadvertent", yet SCO
                  asserted in the past that it has "experts" in Linux and Unix,
                  including contributors to both, and expert managers and legal reps. Obviously,
                  both can't be true: are you lying now, or were your predecessors, in all areas
                  of the company from execs to shipping, lying, incompetent bunglers? Did Yarro
                  and Canopy invest in Linux companies? Did Linux source code ever pass between
                  companies, such as between Lineo and Caldera?

                  3) When will you start lawsuits against former and current employees for
                  releasing code under GPL. Do you feel you've purged enough incriminating
                  evidence from your website to make the charges stick? Do you have, today, any
                  proof at all that Unix source code has been improperly used by IBM or any member
                  of the OSS community other than your employees, or are you hoping for a
                  favorable outcome in the attempt to redefine copyright law before making an
                  announcement?

                  4) In the past month alone, insiders sold nearly $1 million in stock that they
                  acquired for a tiny fraction of that amount. Based on valuation at the time the
                  suit was filed, and a $50 Billion target as quoted in the local paper on many
                  occasions, their stock is worth roughly 3,000 times what the insiders received.
                  Does this mean that you feel there is a less than 1-in-3000 chance of winning
                  the case? Wouldn't it make sense to hold the stock for just 1 year, if you
                  honestly thought you had a chance to literally buy Fort Knox (current reserves:
                  approx. $50B)? If one of your employees ripped up a $3,000 check in return for
                  a $1 bill would you consider firing them for incompetence? Since you
                  distributed code, and exposed the alleged secrets, and have refused to let the
                  open source community help you mitigate damages, how much do you actually expect
                  you might win?

                  5) If you win the case for $50 billion, how much of that will be given in
                  tithing to the Mormon Church? Is the Mormon Church investing in or backing SCO,
                  Canopy, or any Canopy company? How many Canopy board members are Mormon?

                  6) A large proportion of your execs are members of the Mormon Church, as is the
                  state Attorney General. Is there any connection between that and that he lives
                  a short distance from your location, and that no action has been taken by his
                  office to investigate allegations of fraud, racketeering, stock manipulation,
                  etc? Would you consider asking him to start an investigation to clear your
                  name?

                  7) Is the head of the local SEC office a Mormon with close ties to the church
                  and some executives at Canopy? Have you or any SCO representatives discussed
                  the suit with former Governor Leavitt, now head of the EPA but who was governor
                  when your suit was filed, even if just to ask jokingly if he will clean up the
                  toxic spill resulting from a SCO meltdown? Is the former governor Mormon, and
                  doesn't he also live not far from SCO headquarters? Would you ask either of
                  them to launch an investigation in order to help clear your name?

                  8) What are the names of the "MIT experts" who conducted your code
                  review? How many of them were undergraduates, or untrained in computer science?
                  If you can't name them, can you at least mention by name any
                  "harmonic" projects they might have been involved with?

                  9) In a recent Forbes article, Canopy CEO Ralph Yarro hinted that it was in fact
                  he who engineered the suit, as he had done with the DR-DOS suit against
                  Microsoft, and also filed through Caldera. Why aren't SCO execs trusted to
                  make decisions on lawsuits based on their own investigations, instead of acting
                  as the mouthpiece for Canopy? Or do you feel that Yarro was lying? Along those
                  lines, you recently distributed an open letter making some truly bizarre claims
                  about the Constitution, Copyright Law, and other points. It seems that it may
                  have been penned by your brother acting as your mouthpiece, but if not, could
                  you tell us the extent of your legal training in these areas? Could you tell us
                  about Kevin's training?

                  10) How often do you meet with Yarro and other Canopy board members, and are you
                  a member of the Canopy board? Has Canopy secured rights to Unix if you fail, so
                  they can sell the package to somebody else, and if so, do you know who they have
                  in mind? Aren't members of the Canopy board also investors or former investors
                  in other Linux companies such as Trolltech, LinuxNetworx, and Lineo? Wasn't
                  the sale of Lineo, including a multi-million dollar asset transfer that included
                  Linux source to Metrowerks, finished just a few days before you filed suit? How
                  many Linux source-code BSPs were included with the Lineo assets? Was Metrowerks
                  given indemnification? Was IBM case discussed with Matt Harris, former Lineo
                  CEO, an attorney, possible participant in the Lineo GPL Indemnification plan,
                  and now with Metrowerks? Wasn't Lineo sued by MontaVista, and recently settled
                  with MontaVista, over copyright violations including removal of header copyright
                  statements, and aren't some of those same people known to have worked for
                  Caldera, SCO, or other Canopy companies? Was Yarro involved in the MontaVista
                  settlement? If not, why wasn't indemnification given to Metrowerks?

                  11) Why don't you offer indemnification to your customers?

                  12) Did Lineo, a Canopy company, use the services of Ryan Tibbits, an attorney
                  on your case, during the sale of Lineo to Metrowerks, or during creation of the
                  "GPL Compliance Toolkit and Indemnfication Plan" from Lineo? What
                  other Canopy companies have offered GPL indemnification, and has Caldera a.k.a.
                  SCO Group considered offering indemnification for either Linux, or Unix patent
                  infringement?

                  13) Why did you continue to distribute allegedly-offending Linux source code via
                  your website for almost 6 months after you filed suit? Who at SCO ordered
                  removal or destruction of potential evidence and other items that could embarass
                  you or damage your case?

                  14) Do you feel you have any competent managers, engineers, spokespeople, or
                  other employees now or since acquiring SCO? If they are incompetent, why
                  haven't they been fired and sued? And if they are competent, how do you
                  account for the release of code under the GPL for so many years? Was there any
                  Due Diligence done on the SCO acquisition, and did you detect evidence of
                  wrongdoing then? Would you care to offer an opinion on how any but the most
                  incompetent people could have missed "millions" of lines of code?

                  15) Wasn't the name change to "SCO Group" an attempt to confuse the
                  court in the IBM case, or is it to confuse potential customers about your
                  lineage? Didn't SCO change it's name to Tarentella, and isn't your company
                  directly derived from Canopy and Caldera? Are any of the financial reportings
                  that you are providing today wrapped in equally confusing or purposely
                  misleading machinations?

                  16) How many Linux companies has Canopy been involved with over the past 7
                  years? What is the total Linux-related income for Canopy? For Caldera? For
                  SCO?

                  17) Does your church teach that there is an ultimate penalty for lying, for
                  stealing from volunteers, or for making false claims and statements against your
                  neighbors? Of all of the statements that you've made over the past year, which
                  of them do you wish you could retract? Which of Blake's do you wish he hadn't
                  said?

                  18) As a returned Mormon missionary, do you feel it is your obligation to assist
                  the church in funding good works by making massive tithings in the event of a
                  victory, even if many innocent volunteers will be damaged or destroyed?

                  19) As a former missionary with foreign language skills and contacts in other
                  countries, have you picked a country where you could flee to wait out statutes
                  of limitation? Could other employees such as Yarro or Stowell or Sonntag join
                  you? Will the church provide a "calling" for any of you, if you get
                  into trouble during the case or with regulatory agencies? Have you discussed
                  the suit with your bishop, or anybody else who might be in a position to pass
                  information to members of various regulatory bodies who are also church
                  members?

                  20) If you find that any of your employees have lied about the nature or extent
                  of alleged violations in Linux, what action will you take against them? Will
                  you consider suing their insurance companies if you cannot recover money from
                  the employees themselves? Have you ever sued or threatened to sue an insurance
                  company?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  question/answer
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:01 AM EST
                  It's really hard to have relevant questions after following the SCO clowns for
                  awhile. They are not going to truthfully answer anything.
                  I would ask Darl how a lying numbnut attains such a high position, but I would
                  be answering my own question.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  • question/answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 04:53 AM EST
                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:09 AM EST
                  I'd like to ask why SCO claim they have rights over SMP tech, when IBM is
                  already paying royalties to Computer Associates for use of THEIR SMP
                  tech, in AIX.

                  http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38235.htm

                  It appears SMP, as implemented in AIX is owned by Computer Associates
                  and used by IBM. SCO Claim the SMP as put into linux came from Dynix,
                  Sequent's UNIX.

                  So there's AIX with Computer Associate's SMP
                  and Dynix with SCO's SMP

                  And IBM has done work on SMP in Linux. Does this leave CA as having a
                  claim to IBM coding up SMP stuff for linux, or weaken SCO's case, or
                  weaken IBM vs *two* people with claims to SMP tech.

                  Or are CA the good guys, and anti-SCO enough to say "yeah IBM is ok
                  with putting SMP into linux, go for it", leaving SCO with one less card in

                  its shrinking deck?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  OPPOSING VIEW
                  Authored by: jmccorm on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:38 AM EST
                  It is not easy/popular being the bad guy. But for the purpose of discussion, let
                  me offer a diverse view.

                  I see a lot of good questions out there in the discussion forum. Some are good,
                  some are awful, some will provoke the 'CEO dance' where they poke the body of
                  the question with a stick and then artfully dodge it, and some are just square
                  between the eyes deadly.

                  But this really just seems to be an academic exercise if nobody is delivering
                  these questions. Remember the last SCO conference call? "We have no more
                  questions." Those who they don't want to hear questions from are simply
                  ignored. Chances of them accepting a question from, say, a typical Linux
                  publication? Groklaw itself? Near zero.

                  Or should I really believe that a major analyst is going to read this forum and
                  pick up on some of these questions? Or somehow, someone on Team Groklaw is going
                  to break through the filter and hammer out a question?

                  The questions are good. But who's going to deliver?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:48 AM EST
                  Can you tell us the dollar amounts that Directors or Senior management have made
                  from stock sales within the last year? What are the project sales over the next
                  year?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Tips on asking CEO questions
                  Authored by: jmccorm on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:52 AM EST
                  I think the #1 tip that I can share is to absolutely not to leave any vaugeness
                  or wiggle room in the possible answers. Use exact terms. And keep the question
                  very short. The CEO's position will not be to answer the question which you
                  MEAN to ask. It will be to appear to answer it while at the same time giving a
                  very favorable appearance.

                  Reading through the previous transcript(s) with Q&A sessions is helpful.

                  My experience with executives lying (while telling the truth) is that they'll
                  give a literal answer to a question which bypasses the meaning and the intent of
                  the question. This is usually done in a forum where a follow-up would be
                  difficult, or embarassing.

                  There is also the super-specific answer. Q: "Will this have any effect on
                  revenue?" A: "This will have no impact on Q4 revenues."
                  Meaning, Q4 revenues only.

                  Someone really should write a book or a paper on the methods used by executives
                  to deceive. But I'm willing to bet that we'll see a few come monday?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  "Confidentiality" and "secrets"
                  Authored by: bobn on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 02:01 AM EST
                  Since your allegation is that your code (or methods or secrets) are in the Linux kernel code, and since the linux kernel is already available to anyone on the internet, how can you continue to maintain that indicating with specificity which lines of kernel are allegedly infringing would disclose any secrets?

                  If you refuse to name the code in order to "keep the clock ticking" on infringements for later licensing fees or lawsuits, don't you expect your complete failure to mitigate damages, as required under law, to undermine your case?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Pointless
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 02:49 AM EST
                  It's pointless generating questions, as the questions will go to the
                  "name" people.

                  Why do you think the questions are always asked by stock analysts, journalists,
                  etc., when there must be awful lot of Joe Linuxes pressing # or * or whatever?

                  I am willing to bet the questions will come from one of more of: David Politis,
                  the Decatur Jones guy who got cut off last time (I forget his name), Brian Skiba
                  of DBC, CNet, Rob Enderle, Laura DiDio, etc.

                  Do you think it's a coincidence that Bill of Aberdeen group, was allowed to ask
                  questions before he became a skeptic, but no longer appears in the question
                  rosta?

                  Likewise the WSJ guy, Todd Weiss (sp?)?


                  Frankly I'm not interested in SCO answers, except to the extent that they
                  undermine their court case (hence a transcript is worth doing and making
                  available ASAP), and the only questions/answers that I'm really interested in
                  are those that will be asked on January 23 by Judge Wells.


                  P.S.
                  Somebody already posted a link to Stowell saying SCO have an announcement
                  probably pre-market on Monday. Any guesses? My guess, is they acquire another
                  Canopy company using some of that RBC $50m. It convienently (for Canopy) puts
                  the money into their hands, and out of reach of IBM's countersuit and RedHat's
                  suit. Alternatively, they might also put some of whatever software they
                  consider valuable into another Canopy company's hands and license it back for
                  resale - they did this already with Volution (check previous SEC filings)

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Jack Hughes on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:13 AM EST
                  Given that this is a meeting to answer stockholders concerns, issues, etc., I would focus questions in that area. A bit of roleplaying: let's imagine that I am a long term shareholder..

                  SCO still claims to be a technology company. I'm worried that all this money that is coming in is going straight out on lawsuits etc. But what is being spent on real product development.. so

                  How much are you spending on R&D?

                  This new business model is all about getting more from existing partners, potential customers etc. i.e. it is all "tax" without actually giving any body anything in return - not a single customer problem is solved. This worries me - nobody will want to be a co-developer, nobody will want to be a reseller, nobody will want to be a customer of SCO. So..

                  Your new business model can be likened to one of "taxing" organisations and individuals, without providing them with any additional product or service. There is no "value proposition" for any of your "customers". How will this strategy affect the SCO brand? How will you attract and maintain customers? How you will maintain this strategy into the medium term?

                  In the past, SCO has shipped mainly O/S products. These have traditionally been used by Value Added Resellers to form the basis of various "turn key" systems. Assuming that R&D is low, and SCO has aquired other organisations which seemed to be aimed at "web services" whatever those are, how can they continue to support the existing customers - to keep the resellers, and customers that use the SCO platform. so

                  You are moving away from your traditional products, with no new operating system developments except for adding some more free/open source software into the mix. How do you intended to keep supporting your existing customer and reseller base? With the withdrawal of your Linux product line how can existing SCO customers continue to use SCO operating systems when upgrading and maintaining their application platforms?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: dodger on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:15 AM EST
                  Publically, you have chosen a very unpopular direction to steer your company.
                  You have bolstered the company's direction as a litigation company by taking on
                  David Boies, as a significant shareholder. Publically, you have destroyed your
                  name as a software developer and you have destroyed your brand name Unixware.
                  The resultant press has belittled the value of your 'intellectual property'
                  with comments about its being oldfashioned and out of step with the times.

                  Privately, you must have woken up one day and found that your back was against a
                  wall and felt that you had no choice but to take the route you have taken.

                  The community (once your community) was STUNG by your public actions; since your
                  'new' direction has required you to trample on those developers and
                  specialists that had brought so much value to you and others. United Linux and
                  SCO is dead. SCO Linux is dead. Linux/IBM is now poised over you like a tidal
                  wave - the perfect storm.

                  So what do you ask a company who is fighting a life and death struggle and will
                  do ANYTHING to survive:
                  1. Have you been contacted yet by the SEC for illegal stock manipulation?
                  2. Have you been less than open to your backers about your assets and rights
                  concerning Unix SYS 5? All your press statements say that you 'own Unix'? This
                  is false. Can you admit publically that the Trademark UNIX belongs to the Open
                  Group. Have you told your backers that you own 'A' unix license and not
                  'THE' unix license.
                  3. Do your backers realize that IBM will stop at nothing to find out all
                  information regarding what was discussed as regards what SCO does and does not
                  own? Do they realize that you haved dragged them into this fight and that their
                  dealings with you will be publicized and open to scrutiny, and that their
                  investors, such as shareholders of the Royal Canadian Bank or Royce Associates
                  will be asking why did these companies in which I relied to make sound business
                  judgements get involved with this mess?
                  4. Did you realize when you dug yourselves this hole, that you can't get out?
                  Perhaps not a problem for the management and lawyers, but the hole contains some
                  hardworking people who only wanted to do their job; you have tangled them up
                  with your deeds and they will go down with you.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Alternative strategy
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:17 AM EST
                  Everybody is generating good skeptic questions.

                  The problem, I see is that they can get filtered out or dodged. They also,
                  don't help on January 23

                  I'd like to propose an alternative strategy:

                  Encourage Darl to speak his mind. Let him really let rip.

                  We know IBM reads GROKLAW, so let's do this, and present them with a transcript
                  that they can use on Jan 23.

                  This also has the advantage, that (1) we know Darl just loves to speak whatever
                  is on his mind, so you can bet he will respond in the way that I expect, and (2)
                  these questions, because not overtly skeptical, can't be filtered out.

                  Then, when IBM turn up on January 23, they can tell the court whether SCO's
                  most recent public statements match up with what SCO produced in response to
                  discovery.

                  Here's some ideas:

                  1. The court has asked SCO to provide the details of evidence of IBM's
                  infringements. What infringements will you be able to show? Will it include
                  direct Copying from System V? What about direct copying from Unixware? Or is it
                  just all derivative works?

                  2. How many lines of SCO code are IBM infringing?

                  3. Part of the definition of a trade secret, is that the owner must take
                  reasonable measures to protect the secret. What measures did SCO take to
                  protect its trade secrets? Does SCO have records of the all people who had
                  access to the SCO trade secrets?

                  4. SCO have sort of pointed the finger at IBM and SGI as the sources of
                  infringing code. So if somebody simply removed all IBM's and SGI's
                  contributions from Linux, you'd end up with a version of Linux, which SCO had
                  no rights over?

                  5. Sometime ago, you said you had three independent analyses done on Linux to
                  find the infringing code. Can you tell us a little more about the process
                  involved, when this was done, what was found, and what sort of data you got from
                  the analysis.


                  Please feel free to add more.


                  IANAL IA Quatermass

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: jkondis on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 04:26 AM EST
                  IMO the probability very high that SCO personnel will be reviewing the questions
                  we're posting here *before* the conference call. Is everyone posting these
                  questions with this understanding, or are people generally expecting the SCO
                  people *won't* use this forum to prepare for the conference call?

                  Just curious. Of course, many of the really good questions will be difficult to
                  prepare for.

                  ...J

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Maybe it's helpful to put some of SCO's court statements into the spotlight
                  Authored by: Captain on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 04:27 AM EST
                  Could you explain the apparent contradiction between your press releases, in
                  which you claim that SCO has identified thousants of lines of infringing code,
                  and your brother's statement in court, saying "IBM clearly did contribute
                  a lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what it
                  is."

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:12 AM EST
                  Sco have revoked IBM's AIX license. Is SCO seeking legal action against IBM,
                  because they still use/sell/support AIX?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:34 AM EST
                  Not really, the stated that they found infringements. Did they every said they
                  know that IBM did it?
                  Maybe we should ask:

                  You identified direct or obfuscate copieng of SysV code?
                  Did u identify who contributed code?
                  if no,because who contributed what on linux is publicly available,wasn't that
                  possible?

                  Jer

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  2.4, 2.5, 2.6
                  Authored by: Beekster on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:36 AM EST
                  Your submitted list of Linux files that alledgedly contain SCO code/IP were
                  found to most likely come from the 2.5.68 or 2.5.69 trees.

                  Given that most current Linux users are using a 2.4 series kernel, are you
                  searching in the next series of the kernel as it is the only Linux related code
                  that you have not yourselves released or distributed under the GPL?

                  What specific claims do you have towards the 2.4 series that you yourselves did
                  contribute to and distribute under the GPL that would lead you to threaten
                  current Linux users to either pay up or migrate back to 2.2?

                  Now that 2.6.0 has now been released, have you found any specific examples of
                  SCO code in its source tree? Please specify one.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  • 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 06:29 AM EST
                    • 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 10:19 AM EST
                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: skuggi on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:58 AM EST
                  How come that your statements in media differ from what is
                  said in the courthouse?
                  For examble you claim that you know about and have found
                  millions of lines of infringing code in your public
                  statements and you are looking forward to show it in court
                  but in the courthouse your lawyer says that you don't know
                  what code is infringing. Explain please.

                  -Skuggi.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:58 AM EST
                  Can you please hook me up with your dealer?

                  Whatever it is that you are smoking is obviously much better than what I can get
                  my hands on....

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 06:34 AM EST

                  If we agree that the GPL licence does not apply to your Company in relation to Linux (because you don’t abide by its terms or don’t believe it to be valid).

                  Then can you tell us when you gained permission from the individual copyright holders to use their IP and how much this has cost you.


                  (Just let him try to pick the bones out of that one!)

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: LALore on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 06:36 AM EST
                  SCO and IBM have both made significant contributions to the advancemnet of the
                  Linux Kernel. Who was the intial person who identified that IBM were acting
                  illegally in its contributions to Linux? How was this determined and what steps
                  did SCO take with IBM to resolve the issuses when it first became aware of the
                  problem? Was there any communications on the Linux mailing list between the IBM
                  and SCO developers on this subject?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: ra on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 06:44 AM EST
                  Question and follow up:

                  You've claimed that IBM and SGI added over a million lines of code that those
                  companies own in violation of their contracts with you. Those companies have, of
                  course, denied that there was any contract violation.

                  Do you agree that any contract violations where you admit you do not own the
                  code are matters between SCO and IBM or between SCO and SGI and that you cannot
                  sue third parties such as Linux users for IBM or SGI's contract violations?

                  Besides the contract violations, about how many lines of code in Linux do you
                  believe SCO owns the copyright to outright?

                  Another question:

                  SGI publicly announced in May 1999 that it intended to contribute the XFS file
                  system to Linux. IBM publicly contributed its first Linux port of JFS in January
                  2000. SCO and Caldera were both heavily involved in Linux by that time. Why was
                  nothing said then about the supposed contract violations?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: lpletch on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:03 AM EST
                  Has SCO previously advertised SMP or JFS as features of their Linux
                  Distribution?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Forward-looking question
                  Authored by: pyrite on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:32 AM EST
                  Where do you see SCO 50 years from now?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Future Licensing revenue....
                  Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:43 AM EST
                  SCO Group contends that because various Linux developers have put SCO Group copyrighted and trade secret code into the Linux kernel that end users of Linux now owe licensing fees to SCO Group. Would you please name any other cases in the history of U.S. jurisprudence where a copyright or trade secret violation resulted in third party payments to the plaintiff?)

                  -stop there-

                  because how I want to follow up looks like this, and may just be too rude for a polite teleconference:

                  (I thought not. So as a follow up then, you are just pulling the whole notion of licensing fees out of your^h^h^h^h thin air? And, how then, does that, since you have talked about that [faniciful] revenue stream to your investors, differ from lying? And how do you believe the SEC will view that defense?

                  TFL

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  SCO Group Technology
                  Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:56 AM EST
                  Mr. McBride, you contend, both in public and in the text of SCO Group's complaint against IBM, that a number of technologies, (JFS, SMP, RCU, NUMA, specifically), are the property of SCO Group. Can you point us to the copyrights and patents that SCO Group holds for those technologies? And when did SCO Group invent those? And who, specifically, were the developers of those? (By that I mean to ask : which programmers?)

                  --Stop there-- because I am about to go right over the top, again

                  And you believe that will hold up in a court of Law? Really? Why?

                  I worry some about tipping my hand too soon, surely Mr. McBride and his friends now read Groklaw, (I mean it is an award winning site, and all), so I don't really want to give him a lot of time to prepare for these questions. Then again, I suppose there's no worry, I don't think there are any good answers to these questions.

                  TFL

                  -- A fancy teleconference like this, you'd think they could keep the penguins off the phone line.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  The Trillian Project and Other Questions
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 08:36 AM EST
                  Q. In the event that SCO were to lose their case to IBM, and/or lose on IBM's
                  countersit, and/or Red hat's lawsuit, to what degree will SCO's bottom line be
                  impacted?

                  Q. What percentage of SCO's financial resources or being spent on the
                  litigation process and what percent is being spent upon product development?

                  Q. The Trillian Project started in May 1999 with the purpose of creating a LINUX
                  port -- a UNIX-like clone -- to Intel's IA64, and which Pre-dates Project
                  Monterey. How does the Trillian Project impact SCO's claim against IBM?
                  Doesn't the existance of the Trillian Project negate SCO's claim about
                  bringing the one who brought Unix on the Intel Enterprise Platform. (Someone
                  needs to re-phrase the question: Its a KILLER!!)

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Stefan on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 08:39 AM EST
                  1 - What projected revenue will SCO make on it's core business
                  (OS licenses) 1st quarter 2004?

                  2 - How has the law suit affected the sales of non-LINUX SCO
                  licenses?

                  3 - How has the law suit affected the trade mark value of
                  "SCO"

                  4 - How have the growth of sales for UNIX-ware licenses
                  developed since 1st quarter 2003?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  The Cure
                  Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 09:00 AM EST
                  Mr. McBride, since Linux kernel development in performed in public, can you tell us why SCO Group did not act at the time that infringing code was being placed in the Linux kernel?

                  Blake Stowell has stated publicly that removing infringing code from the Linux source tree would not remedy the problem. (Something about the bank robber throwing the money back, as I recall.) Can you explain why that would not be a remedy in this case? Can you name other copyright, trade secret or patent infringement cases where the cure involved something other than the removal of the infringing material?

                  TFL

                  And, as a follow on, has an independent lab tested your blood or urine, or that of any of the officers of SCO Group, for the presence of any opiate derivates? And, if so, what were the results of the testing?

                  I'm sorry, forget that last questoin, sorry. Sorry. It just slipped out.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Article in ServerWatch?
                  Authored by: Stefan on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 09:12 AM EST
                  http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/3291171
                  Under "Other News"

                  "SCO has won assurances that any source code it's required to show in
                  court during the course of its lawsuit against IBM will be kept secret: Only
                  attorneys, the judge, and jury will be privy to it. SCO's problems with a
                  distributed denial of service attack finally seemed to end early this
                  week."

                  Have this really been confirmed? I thought this was only SCO-FUD not approved by
                  court??

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 09:30 AM EST
                  </de-lurk>
                  Just as a thought, and likely many smarter people out here can find a better
                  wording, but...

                  Have you had any of your developers looking at the Linux codebase to identify
                  infringements, and if so what measures have you put in place to avoid any
                  'tainted hands' issues for their future development projects?

                  <goes back to lurking>

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Should we be framing TWO questions of no more than 60 sec. each?
                  Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 09:51 AM EST

                  Hey JP some advise would be appreciated!

                  What’s your take on this?

                  e.g. should we be framing TWO questions of no more than 60sec. each?

                  Q: How Many Questions?

                  A: I’m assuming (noting previous conference calls)… say we will get TWO questions Max

                  Q: How long for each question?

                  A: I’m assuming (noting previous conference calls)…1-2 min.


                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Feeding Trolls *IS* my life....
                  Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 10:18 AM EST
                  Mr. McBride, since SCO Group claims to own a wide variety of technologies, for
                  example, JFS, NUMA, SMP, and RCU, can you explain why your business model,
                  heretofore, has been to permit other companies to implement those technologies
                  first, and only now seeks to assert your ownership rights to those technologies?
                  Hasn't SCO Group given itself a considerable marketing liabilty with this
                  approach?

                  And, in regard to IBM's counter suit, are you concerned, at all, that IBM may
                  assert rights to the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt marketing technique, (that many
                  believe IBM invented), and that they may seek licesing fees and/or royalties
                  from the SCO Group for your continued use of that technology? Do you see any
                  risk to SCO Group's investors from such an action on IBM's part?

                  TFL

                  Honey! The penguin has made a mess all over my good law suit, again! Geez,
                  what have you been feeding him? Yuck!

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  So many questions, so little time....
                  Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 10:34 AM EST
                  Mr. McBride, Should SCO Groups claims be turned down by the courts, however
                  unlikely that may be, what will SCO Group be focusing on, going forward, in
                  order to return value to the stockholders?

                  How would you respond to the charge, if it were made, that SCO Group has lost
                  its leadership role in technology, or that it never had such a role?

                  Is SCO Group's partnership with David Boies's law firm an indication that Mr.
                  Boies's firm intends to begin writing software? Or that SCO Group will become
                  focused solely on litigation?

                  <read in an angry voice; emphasis on the next-to-last word>
                  Are we DONE now?

                  TFL

                  P.S. My aplogies, but geez, once I started asking questions, there seemed no
                  logical place to stop.... I'm gonna quit now, really I am, but try not to bump
                  me, my self-control is rather tenuous just at the moment; anything might set off
                  another fit of interogatives... TFL

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 10:57 AM EST
                  Not questions exactly, but a while back I wrote this article on SCO'sprospects. There are some points here that don't come up just fromlooking at just the legal arguments, which analysts might be interestedin.

                  SCO's prospects

                  Summary: Even if SCO wins its suit against IBM, its prospects are not rosy.

                  Buying SCOX is essentially a bet on SCO winning its suit against IBM. Thisarticle examines the sources of income SCO would have if it won. These are:

                  • income from licensing IP used in linux
                  • damages from IBM.
                  I will examine each in turn.

                  Licensing income

                  This article is my opinion. It is not financial or legal advice.

                  In its suit, SCO claims that two categories of IP have been incorporatedinto linux unlawfully. These are

                  • Unix System V code , owned by SCO, directly incorporated into linux
                  • Code from IBM's AIX and (formerly Sequent's) Dynix

                  The value of Unix System V code is small, since the code is very old andhas depreciated. It alone would not be worth the cost of collecting. Thevalue of AIX and Dynix code is larger, but SCO is very unlikely to beable to claim the full value of it. Here's why:

                  SCO claims that IBM's incorporation of AIX and Dynix code into linux wasunlawful for the following reasons:

                  1. because IBM had contracted not to do so
                  2. because AIX and Dynix are derived from UNIX System V
                  The first reason does not of itself give SCO ownership rights to theincorporated code. Only the second reason would allow SCO to claim feesdirectly from linux customers.

                  According to the second argument, SCO has ownership rights to any codefrom AIX or DYNIX which IBM contributed to linux. Only a small proportionof the value of AIX and DYNIX comes from the original UNIX code, so SCOwould only have the right to that proportion of the value of IBM'scontributions to linux. Even then, IBM may yet succeed in arguing thatSCO has no right to code IBM itself wrote, even if it has also been usedin AIX and DYNIX.

                  SCO also claims that IBM has misappropriated trade secrets it learnedduring their 'Monterey' collaboration. To those it would have full rights.But none of the specific code it has cited in its court filings fall intothis category.

                  So SCO is most unlikely to be able to claim the $699 per CPU fee whichit has set out to, even from existing linux customers. But it has furtherproblems generating a continuing revenue stream. Most linux customersare very price sensitive. The demand for linux is therefore inelastic.Even at much smaller fees than $699, SCO would have few ongoing customers.

                  Damages

                  [not being a lawyer, I'm much less confident of this section]

                  In civil proceedings, damages are usually awarded based on the injuryto the plaintiff due to the unlawful acts. IE, the difference betweenthe plaintiffs wealth now and what it would have been without theunlawful acts. The main problem SCO has is that even if IBM wasbound not to contribute the code it did to linux, it neverthelesshad the right to do lots of other things with it. SCO will find ithard to claim that its business would be much better if IBM had chosenthose actions instead.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Suns Java Desktop and China
                  Authored by: mac586 on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 11:28 AM EST
                  Mr McBride, in your Open Letter On Copyrights you blasted the economic model of
                  the Free Software movement. However, the market apparently disagrees with your
                  statements.

                  On November 17, Sun Microsystems signed a deal with the Chinese Government to
                  supply and support 200 million Linux Desktops. At $50 per desktop for a tailored
                  SUSE Linux, and the additional hardware cost, this one deal clearly eclipses any
                  financial gain SCO would expect from your litigation and licensing schemes.

                  Do you regret following your litigation strategy in light of Sun's contract
                  with China?

                  Do you ever expect to compete once again in the Operating System market?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  yes it is
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 11:35 AM EST
                  The difference is that SCO has never claimed they are doing what they do in the name of their religion. Unless you believe, as I do, that they have forsaken all other gods for the worship of Mammon.

                  The magnitude of the devastation of 9/11 combined with the fallout that continues to this day makes the comparison especially offensive.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:22 PM EST
                  I would like to see a question framed that attempts to identify the companies
                  who allegedly purchased SCO's licenses. One of the ploys extensively used
                  during the dot.com bubble was companies doing business with each other to make
                  their sales picture brighter than it actually was. Enron and AOL come to mind.
                  What guarantees do SCO's stock holders (assuming there are any who don't work
                  for SCO) have that the purchasers of SCO's licenses widely reported in the
                  press were actually valid sales as opposed to friends shifting money around to
                  prop up the bottom line? I'm surprised the SEC even allows anonymous
                  customers after enron. Any ideas for a short, concise question?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:36 PM EST
                  Some Possible Questions :

                  1) How many of the Fortune 500 companies that were approached regarding licenses
                  for linux have taken up the offer and purchased them?
                  2) How many Fortune 500 companies have provisionally agreed to the licensing but
                  have not yet purchased licenses?
                  3) How much revenue (both Gross & Net) has so far been generated by
                  approaching the Fortune 500 companies for licenses?
                  4) How much projected revenue will the licenses from the Fortune 500 companies
                  generate in the next full financial year?
                  5) How many Licenses (in total from all Fortune 500 companies) have been
                  purchased?
                  6) What is the largest number of licenses granted to, and paid for, by a Fortune
                  500 company?
                  7) What percentage of the administration costs for the licenses paid for by the
                  Fortune 500 companies are associated with legal fees (either as a direct charge
                  or as part of a contingency fee)?

                  Sorry, best I can come up with at the moment.

                  Regards
                  Faluzeer

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  The Best So Far (in post order)
                  Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:06 PM EST

                  ++++++++++ 1

                  Tips on asking CEO questions
                  Authored by: Nathan Hand on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:49 AM EST
                  /snip
                  Q: SCO has stated that the GPL is invalid. Which license does SCO distribute
                  Samba under?
                  A: Uhh... umm...
                  /snip

                  ++++++++++ 2

                  Contingency Fees and the RBC/Baystar Veto
                  Authored by: mac586 on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:48 PM EST
                  1. At the November 19 Teleconference, the word contigency was used more than a
                  dozen times to describe the agreements between SCO and it's Legal team.

                  Then, on December 8, 2003 SCO filed an 8-K with the SEC, that more accurately
                  describes how the legal team will be paid.

                  In hindsight, would you still refer to the agreement, which was signed after
                  the
                  November 19 teleconference, as a contingency plan?
                  /snip

                  ++++++++++ 3

                  Focus on copyrights
                  Authored by: rsmith on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:29 AM EST

                  You have publicly claimed that the Linux kernel infringes on your copyrights.
                  Yet you have taken no actions to get the alledgedly infinging code removed.

                  How can this not mininize the damages you can collect for the alleged
                  infringement?
                  /snip

                  ++++++++++ 4

                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:17 AM EST
                  Everybody is generating good skeptic questions.

                  The problem, I see is that they can get filtered out or dodged. They also,
                  don't help on January 23

                  I'd like to propose an alternative strategy:

                  Encourage Darl to speak his mind. Let him really let rip.

                  /snip

                  4. SCO have sort of pointed the finger at IBM and SGI as the sources of
                  infringing code. So if somebody simply removed all IBM's and SGI's
                  contributions from Linux, you'd end up with a version of Linux, which SCO had
                  no rights over?

                  5. Sometime ago, you said you had three independent analyses done on Linux to
                  find the infringing code. Can you tell us a little more about the process
                  involved, when this was done, what was found, and what sort of data you got
                  from
                  the analysis.
                  /snip

                  ++++++++++ 5

                  The next ones mine - I have NO shame -
                  Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 06:34 AM EST


                  If we agree that the GPL licence does not apply to your Company in relation to
                  Linux (because you don’t abide by its terms or don’t believe it to be valid).


                  Then can you tell us when you gained permission from the individual copyright
                  holders to use their IP and how much this has cost you.


                  (Just let him try to pick the bones out of that one!)

                  ++++++++++ 6

                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 08:05 AM EST

                  Or how about:

                  You (SCO) have made statements on several occasions to the effect that you do
                  not need a license to distribute the Linux kernel, since it allegedly contains
                  your own IP. Since you do not claim that the entirety of the Linux kernel
                  source is the property of SCO, under what license are you continuing to
                  distribute the IP of the other contributors to the Linux kernel?


                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Excellent Financial Q: Bankrupcy before trial starts/ends?
                  Authored by: jmccorm on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:08 PM EST
                  See the following Yahoo! posts as reference:<BR>
                  <a
                  href="http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&board=1600684464&am
                  p;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&action=m&mid=69630">#69630</A&
                  gt;
                  <BR>
                  <a
                  href="http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=
                  1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=69635">#69635</A&
                  gt;<P>

                  This question can be readily understood and tweaked by a financial analyst.
                  Basic idea: "Can you show us SCO's financial plan as a going concern
                  until an eventual payout from IBM?"

                  Side questions: "Any additional investment? Reliance on licensing
                  efforts?"

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What *not* to ask
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:36 PM EST
                  The announcement Monday is probably designed to be a distraction. Don't take
                  the bait.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:58 PM EST
                  The questions already posted are pretty good, so I have an post- Litigation
                  Business Model blowup *answer* for DMcB and BS:

                  ''Yes, I would like fries with that''

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 02:46 PM EST
                  The Unanswerable Question :
                  What legally valid license gives you the right to distribute Samba, which is not copyrighted by you ?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: colin.saxton on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:02 PM EST
                  Q1. Did the recent attacks on your website effect the work being done to provide
                  IBM with the details ordered by Judge Wells?

                  Q2.

                  If yes:
                  You have been quoted as having all the questions to specific lines of code
                  already...so you are saying that you do not have that information anymore?
                  ***give various examples posted on groklaw***

                  If no: Do you dis-agree with the findings on groklaw that you have been involved
                  yourselves in adding code to the linux kernel fully aware, at the time the code
                  was added, that you where under the obligation of the GPL. For example some of
                  your key ex-developers have already given evidence to this effect on the groklaw
                  website...

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Why the Recent Resignations in Audit and Investor Relations?
                  Authored by: jrc on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:07 PM EST
                  Over the past seven weeks, SCO has advertised two open positions in investor
                  relations and two financial audit positions focused on compliance with SEC/GAAP
                  regulations and the Sarbanne-Oxley Act, all four reporting to CFO Robert Bench.
                  Two of these positions are for senior, director-level posts. Did the incumbents
                  resign from these positions over ethical concerns with the company's activities
                  or were they let go for insubordination? If the incumbents left for other
                  reasons, why is there such high turnover in the areas in which the company is
                  supposed to be building trust and solid relationships with its investors and
                  with regulators?

                  If these are new positions, why did you feel the need to expand in audit and
                  investor relations when you are in a long-haul legal fight and are watching your
                  burn rate? How may people now work in investor relations, audit, and SEC/GAAP
                  reporting?

                  Subtext: Did some of the incumbents have ethical objections to the manner in
                  which the company is reporting financials to investors? Did they have other
                  ethical objections?

                  ---

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  straight to the jugular
                  Authored by: RichMan on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:15 PM EST
                  Question: Failure is a possibility,

                  I believe we could call AT&T's attempt to assert property rights over the
                  BSD code a complete failure back in the 1990's. Well not a complete failure it
                  created the process that lead to SCO's acquisition of UNIX code rights.
                  AT&T never had UNIX as a core product, SCO does. Failure will affect SCO's
                  core operations. A year ago SCO was operating without asserting any UNIX rights.
                  As an outside contingency case where will SCO be in terms of product revenue,
                  development, expenditures, customer goodwill etc. should SCO's attempt to
                  assert property rights on Linux and UNIX fail totally? Will SCO be right back
                  where it was a year ago?

                  1) provides information on previous failed attempt to claim open code
                  2) asks a buisness case contingency question on key buisness issues
                  3) implies a $1 stock price Darl would not want

                  Probably a little wordy

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Novell holds copyright. How can you sue?
                  Authored by: crythias on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:50 PM EST
                  1) Novell claims that it is the copyright holder of UNIX, as well as holder of several patents on UNIX, which Novell says did NOT transfer with the sale of UNIX to SCO. Under what basis does the SCO Group make its claim of copyright?
                  To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated copyrights. We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights.
                  Further Reference, Undisputable: Go here and search for Unix.
                  Item 3 OF 10 V3502 P793 (COHD)
                  Date Recorded: 10Oct03
                  Date Executed: 2Oct03
                  Assignor: Novell, Inc.
                  Note: Declaration regarding ownership of US copyright registration number TXu 510-028.
                  Document Location: (V3502 D793 P1)
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
                  Item 4 OF 10 V3502 P793 (COHD)TITLE: UNIX; computer operating system & systems software. TXu 510-028.
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
                  Item 5 OF 10 V3502 P794 (COHD)
                  Date Recorded: 10Oct03
                  Date Executed: 2Oct03
                  Assignor: Novell, Inc.
                  Note: Declaration regarding ownership of U.S. copyright registration number T
                  Document Location: (V3502 D794 P1)
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
                  Item 6 OF 10 V3502 P794 (COHD)TITLE: UNIX; computer operating system & systems software. TXu 511-236.
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
                  Item 7 OF 10 V3502 P795 (COHD)
                  Date Recorded: 10Oct03
                  Date Executed: 2Oct03
                  Assignor: Novell, Inc.
                  Note: Declaration regarding ownership of U.S. copyright registration number T
                  Document Location: (V3502 D795 P1)
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
                  Item 8 OF 10 V3502 P795 (COHD)TITLE: UNIX; computer operating system & systems software. TXu 516-704.
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
                  Item 9 OF 10 V3502 P796 (COHD)
                  Date Recorded: 10Oct03
                  Date Executed: 2Oct03
                  Assignor: Novell, Inc.
                  Note: Declaration regarding ownership of U.S. copyright registration number T
                  Document Location: (V3502 D796 P1)
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
                  Item 10 OF 10 V3502 P796 (COHD)TITLE: UNIX; computer operating system & systems software. TXu 516-705.
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:23 PM EST
                  Do you have any plans to shut down Groklaw and seek damages for being
                  unconstitutional and prempting the legal process.?

                  Have you personally viewed the mountain of Anti-SCO feeling online, such as
                  Groklaw.


                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: pooky on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:36 PM EST
                  I would ask:

                  How does your recent ammended agreement with investors and holders of your
                  class-a preferred stock affect your contractual obligations to Boies, Schiller,
                  and Flexner LLP? The ammended language grants the investors power over decisions
                  that will trigger contingent payments to your lawyers, however the acceptance
                  letter of your lawyers states that BSF expects the original intent of the
                  agreement to be honored. This would appear to have created a potential conflict
                  between the two parties.

                  Does SCOG have any alternate plans for legal repreentation should an
                  irreconsilable disagreement erupt between the new investors and BSF? How would
                  alternate representation affect the potential outcome of your litigation with
                  IBM?

                  -pooky

                  ---
                  IANAL, etc...

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 08:54 PM EST
                  (If not readily apparent in any documentation they hand out, ask:)

                  How much are you putting into research and development and what percentage of
                  your budget does that comprise?

                  What new products are you bringing to market, other than the possibility of
                  Linux licenses?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: pajamian on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 10:22 PM EST
                  Long drawn out question, but needed to prevent same-old tired out answers from
                  Darl:

                  You have repeatedly refused to show the Linux community what lines of source
                  code in the Linux kernel are allegedly infringing on your intellectual property
                  except for a select portion of that to those individuals who are willing to sign
                  an extremely restrictive non-disclosure agreement which would legally prevent
                  them from being able to make any usefull changes to the code to mitigate
                  damages. While you claim that this is to prevent the Linux community from
                  removing all the infringing material from the the Linux kernel you cannot
                  legally prevent any current or potential defendant from mitigating damages by
                  refusing to specify what is causing the damages. Essentially what you are doing
                  is enabling the Linux community to continue to damage your business model
                  without having to pay for those damages later.

                  Wouldn't it be better for you financially and otherwise to give the Linux
                  community the information it needs to allow them to mitigate damages now rather
                  than later? If not, how does SCO stand to gain financially by refusing to
                  release this information?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Stefan on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 10:57 PM EST
                  I don't think they will last until next summer but I would be very surprised if
                  Mr McBride says something along those lines...
                  It would be fun to hear what they have to say about their great PR success for
                  UNIX Ware and how sales is going.
                  Wouldn't surprise me if they replace the software-people with an expanded legal
                  department!
                  Just another obsolete OS, and they know it.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  How can we help?....What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: tce on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 01:22 AM EST
                  SCO, In keeping with your continued use of open source software in your
                  proprietary products, what line of open source / creative commons licensed
                  research would you like PJ and the Groklow community to pursue as an aid to your
                  other line of business?

                  (OK, this one was really for us :-)

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 04:11 AM EST
                  Probably this question has already been presented, but here goes:

                  On December 5, 2003, your lawyer stated, in court, that The SCO group would be filing an amended complaint which includes copyright violations. This hasn't been done yet. Why?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Caldera and Fraud
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 06:06 AM EST
                  Your company, when it was known as Caldera, raised hundreds of millions of
                  dollars on the promise of it's Linux product offerings.

                  Since you claim that the licensing of these products violates the U.S
                  constitution, and that these products contain code illegally introduced and
                  distributed that have resulted in a multi-billion-dollar damges claim, would you
                  agree that Caldera's IPO dollars were the spoils of massive fraud against it's
                  investors?



                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  • Caldera and Fraud - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 03:24 PM EST
                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 10:36 AM EST
                  1. For SCO to generate revenue from Linux users, there has to be a credible
                  threat. Hasn't SCO's crediblity been irreparably damaged by SCO's constantly
                  changing position on Linux licensing? First you said that invoices would be
                  sent out, then you said that the 'voluntary response was adequate', then you
                  said that invoices would be sent out by Oct 15 at the latest, then that deadline
                  expires and new threats are voiced. Why do you expect anybody to believe you
                  now? [ok, it's a long question!]

                  2. Does SCO's contract with Sun entitle SCO to any royalty from Sun's deal for
                  millions of Linux workstations in China?





                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 11:42 AM EST
                  In the likely case that the GPL is considered a valid and enforcable licence,
                  have you prepared for several if not a lot of lawsuits agianst your firm from
                  OSS companies and independent developers who's work you still offer trough your
                  website and bundled products since you clearly do NOT accept the terms stated in
                  the GPL.

                  SCO still offers features in there products provided by Samba and apache for
                  example.

                  Retep Vosnul

                  Netherlands.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 01:12 PM EST
                  I have several questions:

                  (1) Darl McBride stated earlier that he would be surprised if the SCO Group did
                  not sue an end user by the end of December. Then your man Blake Stowell states
                  that no lawsuit will be announced at this earnings conference. What's going on,
                  and why?

                  (2) If I understand correctly: Your new investors, Baystar and RBC, pushed
                  through some changes which require the SCO Group's top management to seek
                  clearance from the Board of Directors, before they take any legal action. Are
                  there strings attached to their investments, and what are those strings?

                  (3) Your SEC filings show a far more sober view of your business than your
                  public pronouncements. What's going on?

                  (4) The SCO Group website is advertising for a number of key positions related
                  to financial reporting. What's going on?

                  (5) You delayed your earnings conference by two weeks and a half. Would you tell
                  us why?

                  (6) A number of your high executives have sold most if not all of their SCO
                  Group stock holdings. What is your interpretation of that? Another huge tax bill
                  to pay up?

                  (7) Do you believe that your stock price is valued just right, overvalued or
                  undervalued? If you believe that your stock is either rightly valued or
                  undervalued, then would you mind telling us what are in your opinion the
                  business fundamentals that justify the stock price?

                  (8) Your external legal team seems to be paid no matter what. Does this happy
                  state of affairs for them have something to do with how you define
                  "contigency"?

                  Recommendation:
                  In general, because it is an earnings conference, the financial experts at
                  groklaw would be the best ones to suggest the questions, which should be
                  financial anyway. Those questions should look beyond the SCO Group's numbers
                  and probe the fundamental soundness of the SCO Group's business both as an
                  ongoing concern and as an investment: let's remember that Enron claimed
                  profitability right down to the last quarter of its existence.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  SCO Qs – Revenue and Cash
                  Authored by: stdsoft on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 02:38 PM EST
                  The following are suggested analyst questions regarding revenue and cash. The
                  liberty has been taken to rephrase some of these to promote clarity.

                  Q: European operations have historically been important to SCO, comprising 40%
                  of product and services revenue. European revenues have trended lower the past
                  two years, and earlier this year you decided to wind up the operations of your
                  European Headquarters in the UK. What steps are you taking to shore up the
                  European revenue stream?

                  Q: Did you attract any large new customers in your heritage product and
                  services business lines during Q4?

                  Q: On the prior earnings call you mentioned that inside of SCOsource you have
                  multiple accounts. The two dominant accounts appear to be OEM licensing of UNIX
                  source and your Linux program for end user licensing. Will you please describe
                  how SCOSource revenue this quarter aligns with those two accounts?

                  Q: On the prior earnings call you indicated that you were “going to see how
                  [your Linux program for end user licensing] plays out over a quarter before
                  [you] start giving guidance…” Is the opportunity pipeline now sufficiently
                  stable that you can provide Q1 guidance for this particular revenue stream?

                  Q: Mr. Bench previously described the OEM licensing of UNIX source as “big
                  blocks coming in that you would get multiple quarter coverage out of,” but that
                  this revenue stream “isn't something that goes on forever.” You felt you would
                  see a significant run-up over time coming from Linux end-user licensing that
                  would offset the fall-off in OEM licensing of UNIX source. Do you sense that
                  this ramp-up will happen quickly enough to offset the loss of OEM license
                  revenue without seeing a revenue gap?

                  Q: Will SCO provide cash refunds (ie, not credits to buy other products) for
                  Linux end-user licensees in the event that the courts determine there is no
                  infringement?

                  Q: The IBM lawsuit and prospective jury award is expected to take years,
                  particularly considering the appellate process. If revenue from Linux end-user
                  licensing does not replace the fall-off from OEM licensing of UNIX, it appears
                  that cash might become an issue while the IBM litigation is in process. What
                  steps might management take to improve the balance sheet and ensure
                  survivability during the IBM matter?

                  Q: You indicate in your filings that you are concerned your case against IBM
                  could adversely affect your heritage business. Have you seen any degradation of
                  those respective sales pipelines as a result of this ongoing litigation matter?

                  Q: It now appears the improving economy is touching the technology sector as
                  many North American technology companies are reporting an uptick in sales
                  compared to last year. Do you believe that the heritage product and services
                  revenue streams will benefit from this economic improvement in the tech sector?

                  Q: The heritage product and services business lines have been in steady decline
                  since the first quarter of 2001. Your Web Services initiative is one program
                  you are undertaking to reverse that trend. This is a multi-part question; what
                  is the status of the Web Services initiative? Has the Web Services initiative
                  played a direct role yet in securing new sales? Do you have plans for other
                  similar initiatives?

                  Q: You have publicly indicated that the Linux kernel infringes on your
                  copyrights, yet you have taken no actions to remove the allegedly infringing
                  code. Are you concerned that this inaction will minimize any damages you might
                  collect for the alleged infringement?

                  Q: All of the Linux end user licenses being sold are perpetual, meaning that
                  they are all one-time collections. Are you concerned that for each customer you
                  are able to convince to purchase a license, that revenue is non-recurring?

                  Q: If you lose your case against IBM and the courts rule against your IP claims
                  regarding Linux, will you be able to operate a viable business?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  SCO Qs – Expenses and Cost Management
                  Authored by: stdsoft on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 02:40 PM EST
                  The following are suggested analyst questions regarding Expenses and Cost
                  Management. The liberty has been taken to rephrase some of these to promote
                  clarity.


                  Q: You have created a group dedicated to development of the SCOSource
                  initiative and recognize costs in the SCOSource COGS account. You are also
                  placing legal expenses in this account. Do you plan to provide any additional
                  transparency relative to legal expenses?

                  Q: You previously mentioned that the expected run rate for legal fees would be
                  about $1MM per quarter. Given the experience you have now with the costs of
                  ongoing litigation, do you see any reason to revise that estimate?

                  Q: During discussion regarding use of proceeds from recent financing, you
                  mentioned the opportunity to elevate R&D efforts. What sort of increased
                  R&D expense might be expected in Q1 and 2004?

                  Q: How many software developers do you employ? Do you expect the overall
                  number of developers to change much in Q1 and 2004? Approximately how do these
                  distribute across product lines such as (a) OpenServer? (b) UnixWare?, (c) All
                  other software products?

                  Q: What is the status of the shareholder lawsuit? Are there ongoing expenses,
                  charges related to that or upcoming settlements or write-offs?

                  Q: Have any cost estimates been developed for defense against IBM's 4 patent
                  violation claims?

                  Q: Assuming that SCO still intends to be a player in the OS market (with
                  upcoming OpenServer version and new push into Web Services), are you planning to
                  hire a CTO to replace Bawa?

                  Q: At the November 19 teleconference, the term contingency was repeatedly used
                  to describe the agreements between SCO and it's Legal team. In retrospect,
                  would you still describe it as a contingency arrangement?

                  Q: It appears the $1.6MM remuneration paid to Boies derives from the 20%
                  contingency arrangement and applies to the second Microsoft license agreement.
                  That Microsoft deal is described as pertaining to licensing of enhanced UNIX
                  rights. The engagement letter does not appear to provide for contingencies to
                  be paid for these sorts of OEM UNIX license deals. Will you please explain?

                  Q: You have explained that many insider trades concern the need to cover tax
                  liabilities triggered upon vesting events. Many other recent trades, though,
                  exceed the tax burden incurred from vesting events. Will you kindly describe
                  other circumstances that might cause these sales?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  SCO Qs – Litigation
                  Authored by: stdsoft on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 02:42 PM EST
                  The following are suggested analyst questions regarding Litigation. The liberty
                  has been taken to rephrase some of these to promote clarity.


                  Q: In the prior earnings call, you mentioned having rock solid evidence that
                  your IP was transferred Unix into Linux. A court in Germany issued an order
                  this summer that prevents you from making claims that you have intellectual
                  property rights on the Linux kernel. Then in September the German court levied
                  a fine. Given the size of the German market and the importance of your European
                  revenue stream, why didn’t you leverage your evidence in Germany?

                  Q: Regarding your ongoing litigation against IBM, do you feel that the
                  involvement of SCO employees in enterprise Linux development efforts might
                  possibly compromise the strength of your evidence in that case?

                  Q: Do recent charges brought against David Boies in Florida have any bearing on
                  your continued use of the services of David or his firm?

                  Q: During the 12/5 hearing, your counsel indicated that you would be adding a
                  copyright complaint to the IBM suit. Can you provide an update, and any details
                  about that complaint?

                  Q: Did you set up your stock sales plans before or after you hired David
                  Boies?

                  Q: Recent SEC filings relating to the private placement indicate that
                  Baystar/RBC has the right to
                  veto over moves SCO can make. What exactly does that cover? Do they have final
                  say only on questions of buyouts, equity financing, etc., or do they also have
                  veto power over any new lawsuits that SCO management might contemplate filing?

                  Q: How and how quickly will common shareholders be advised of information
                  preferred shareholders are given about a proposed course of action? Will SCO
                  commit to quick disclosure if a veto is exercised?

                  Q: During the discovery phase of the IBM matter, you provided IBM with files
                  that included little more than comments like "Does not work with
                  SMP." This has led many to speculate that your code profiling and
                  analysis techniques are not terribly sophisticated? Would you like to comment
                  on this?

                  Q: Your agreement with the firm of well-known attorney David Boies indicates
                  that he will make himself personally available 'to handle critical hearings and
                  depositions and, if applicable, at trial.' Do you consider the upcoming hearing
                  on 1/23/04 to be critical and do you expect David or another member of his firm
                  to represent SCO on the matters before The Court that day?

                  Q: Considering the special appearances of David Boies as a separate matter,
                  many investors were anticipating that a member of the lead firm in the IBM case,
                  Boies, Schiller & Flexner, would represent the company at most if not all
                  hearings. My question is: should we expect that the other two firms involved in
                  this case will continue to take the lead when arguing at select hearings?

                  Q: Has SCO retained sufficient patent legal expertise to defend against IBM's
                  four patent violation claims? Are you planning to offer your customers
                  indemnification for products and customers that allegedly infringe IBM patents?
                  Have you sought or been offered any IBM cross-licensing options?

                  Q: Is SCO actively pursuing settlement offers with IBM or Red Hat? Are IBM and
                  Red Hat pursuing SCO with settlement offers?

                  Q: What is your position as to IBM’s rights to publish JFS as provided by
                  Amendment X of the Novell Asset Transfer Agreement?

                  Q: In prior conference calls you mentioned the intent to countersue Red Hat.
                  Are you simply waiting on the outcome of the motion to dismiss before proceeding
                  with a countersuit?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Independent legal analyis
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 02:48 PM EST

                  Darl

                  Is there any independent analysis, by legally competent analysts, that regards your claims as having more credence than a monty Python sketch?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 07:00 PM EST
                  1) Could you please clarify the legal relationship between the original
                  Santa Cruz Operation company and the current SCO Group, as it relates
                  to the intellectual property at issue in the IBM and RedHat lawsuits?

                  2) When will the SCO Group imdemnify its users against lawsuits
                  regarding intellectual property, specifically but not limited to IBM
                  patents, Linux, SAMBA and other GPL software copyrights, and origin of
                  LKP code.

                  3) Of the "millions" of lines of code the SCO Group has stated are
                  at
                  issue, what percentage are related to the IBM contract dispute? What
                  percent are present in the Linux code base that are not covered by the
                  BSD/AT&T suit? What percent are in Linux because of contributions by
                  SCO employees explictly contributed with management blessing?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 07:30 PM EST
                  There was a book published by Melbourne House entitled
                  something like "The Complete Spectrum ROM Disassembly" by Dr
                  Ian Logan & Dr Frank O'Hara (C) 1983 and had discussions and
                  comments added to the code .

                  Bruce S.

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:03 AM EST
                  Q1: SCO is to be commended for calling the software industry to account for the longstanding failure to warrant and indemnify their customers and users. While HP leads the industry in providing indemnities to their users, can we expect SCO to follow suit, and indemnify users of the next release of OpenServer, in contrast to previous end user licenses, and will such indemnification extend to cover the various open source products you plan to distribute with the next version of OpenServer, such as Apache and Samba?

                  Q2: Back in May, CEO Darl McBride acknowledged that the Linux developer community has great respect for IP, and would gladly remove any misappropriated code long before it became necessary to move things into a courtroom(*). Is it this opinion that gave SCO the confidence to bundle various open source products, such as Samba and Apache, with the next version of OpenServer?

                  Q3 (corrollary to Q2, above): Back in May, CEO Darl McBride acknowledged that the Linux developer community has great respect for IP, and would gladly remove any misappropriated code if given the opportunity(*). How is it in the best interests of SCO, the company, and the shareholders of SCOX, to allow the alleged IP infringement to continue for the year and a half it's going to take to move the case to the courtroom?

                  *: What Darl actually said:
                  "We feel very good about the evidence that is going to show up in court. We will be happy to show the evidence we have at the appropriate time in a court setting," McBride said. "The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."-- Darl McBride, 2003-05-01
                  It's all about the spin, baby!

                  But we're missing a great opportunity for a betting pool here:

                  a) How many of these Groklaw questions will be asked tomorrow.
                  b) How many of these questions will be asked before the conference call is cut off.

                  and of course, individual bets on just which questions will be asked.

                  bkd

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday?
                  Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 07:45 AM EST
                  Are there any companies that'll employ you lot after SCO's gone tits up?

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  SUPPORT
                  Authored by: doomy on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:01 AM EST
                  In case that you win....(not probably)
                  Will you support the kernel,NUMA, RCU, SMP development of future releases?. What
                  kind of licensing? Will you contract Linus Todorvals?.

                  Considering the number of linux users (some millons) how will be your strategy
                  for the increment of new customers, or just have strategy for law court.How many
                  people works actually in your support dept? and in your development dept?

                  What kind of support/licensing will have the companies that actually produce
                  software for linux, they can write good code 'cause their deep knowledge of the
                  Kernel code. will they be able to review/get the code source for their
                  development.

                  Will you continue the development of GPL software that you use actually?
                  (apache)



                  ---
                  keep your head on the way
                  and your hands on steering wheel

                  [ Reply to This | # ]

                  Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
                  All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
                  Comments are owned by the individual posters.

                  PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )