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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:11 PM EST

We've all been wondering here on Groklaw if financial analysts live in an alternate universe. Or worse. I know many of you have found it discouraging. But here is some evidence that the message is now starting to get through. I have been given permission to show you Dion Cornett's most recent SCO analysis for Decatur Jones. Here you go.

You might be interested also to know about this report in Federal Computer Week yesterday that officials at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts announced they are switching from Solaris to Linux:

"Linux operating systems continue to gather steam in government information technology circles, with officials at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts announcing they would support the open standard as the basis for mission-sensitive applications.

"The courts agency awarded PEC Solutions Inc., based in Fairfax, Va., a contract worth up to $9 million to help migrate the administrative office's existing Sun Microsystems Inc.'s Solaris/Intel Corp. server infrastructure to the Linux platform. The agreement is initially for one year with an option for four more years.

"According to officials, the Linux systems will back several critical applications supported at court locations throughout the United States, including court and probation/pretrial services case management, finance and accounting.

"The courts agency awarded PEC Solutions Inc., based in Fairfax, Va., a contract worth up to $9 million to help migrate the administrative office's existing Sun Microsystems Inc.'s Solaris/Intel Corp. server infrastructure to the Linux platform. The agreement is initially for one year with an option for four more years.

"According to officials, the Linux systems will back several critical applications supported at court locations throughout the United States, including court and probation/pretrial services case management, finance and accounting."




  


Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis | 272 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Interesting.... Thank you.
Authored by: OK on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:24 PM EST
Interesting reading.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Strategy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 03:23 PM EST
    • Strategy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 09:40 PM EST
    • who will they sue - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 26 2003 @ 03:07 AM EST
fascinating sidebar comments
Authored by: SkArcher on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:32 PM EST
Retrying the AT&T case would not be prudent given the trial's rulings

[ Reply to This | # ]

$30mil buyout offer?
Authored by: blaisepascal on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:37 PM EST
The report mentioned that SCOX turned down a $30mil buyout offer from a 3rd
party. Any idea what that's about?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pro forma earnings
Authored by: sphealey on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:37 PM EST
After Enron, Worldcom, Webvan, and pets.com, why would anyone so much as look at "pro forma" earnings, much less use them for any kind of analysis? Or even think about them? GAAP statements may not be perfect, but they are clearly more reliable than the swamp of broken mirror shards and black cat hair that make up "pro forma 'earnings'".

sPh

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ, off topic, By reading this, you accept this liscense
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:40 PM EST
Dear PJ,

From me (hereinafter referred to as "the wishor") to you
(hereinafter referred to as the "wishee") Please accept without
obligation, except as stated herein, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an
environmentally conscious, socially responsible, politically correct, low
stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice
holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious
persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for
the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice
not to practice religious or secular traditions at all, and a financially
successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the
onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2001, but with due respect for the
calendars of choice of other cultures or sects, and having regard to the race,
creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer
platform or dietary preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting you are bound by these terms:

1. This greeting is subject to further clarification or withdrawal.

2. This greeting is freely transferable provided that no alteration shall be
made to the original greeting and that the proprietary rights of the wishor are
acknowledged.

3. This greeting is communicated "as is" and implies no promise by
the wishor to actually implement any of the wishes, nor does it create any
warranties of any kind, except as expressly stated herein.

4. This greeting may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions and/or the
restrictions herein may not be binding upon certain wishees in certain
jurisdictions and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wishor.

5. This greeting is warranted to perform as reasonably may be expected within
the usual application of good tidings, for a period of one year or until the
issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first.

6. The wishor warrants this greeting only for the limited replacement of this
wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wishor.

7. Any references in this greeting to "the Lord", "Father
Christmas", "Our Savior", or any other festive figures,
whether real or fictitious, dead or alive, shall not imply any endorsement by or
from them in respect of this greeting, and all proprietary rights in any
referenced third party's names and images are hereby acknowledged.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:41 PM EST
The good thing is that this report hit the financial
newswires. The bad thing is that SCOX is so closely held
and thinly traded that virtually nothing can influence
it's price other than manipulation by current holders.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Way too rosy.
Authored by: dmomara on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:42 PM EST
This guy's wildly optomistic.

Three days in a courtroom with these jamokas and the gardener from Florida owns
all of Canopy and all of Darl's fillings.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Staying" All Copyright Suits - Time for California to ACT
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:44 PM EST
The report points out that anyone who is sued for copyright violations by SCO
can request that all proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of the Red Hat
Lanham actions and/or the IBM fact-finding (especially if SCO adds copyright
claims to its IBM suit).

There is another way to stay the proceedings without waiting for SCO to pick the
"wrong" company to sue - ie one willing to fight. The University of
California can request a stay pending resolution of the issue of whether SCO's
theatened litigation violates the 1994 settlement agreement between ATT/USL and
Berkeley/BSD. Its time for California to step up!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: jasonstiletto on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:50 PM EST
just eyeballing it, it looks like SCO's stock is on a slow downward trend since
September. One thing they said I agree with though, if the end user they go
after stands up and fights, the odds of them getting any more revenue out of
that channel drops tremendously...

possible negatives..
discovery
red hat
end user lawsuit doesn't reach a settlement

hmm.. I'm watching for insiders to bolt. Any day now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:51 PM EST

Note that there is a spelling error on Page 4:

>Based on the IBM concern, did legal counsel have a
>role in turining this deal down?

I've advised the Dion about this.

Wayne

[ Reply to This | # ]

RedHat defense fund
Authored by: lcamargo on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:52 PM EST
Isn't the $1M defense fund created by RedHat available to any end-user sued by
SCO ? That should be more than enough to hire a lawyer to file a response along
the lines of: "The copyright is in dispute between SCO and Novell. Please
call again when that is resolved."


[ Reply to This | # ]

Looking for an end-user to sue?
Authored by: justjeff on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 02:53 PM EST
Part of Mr. Cornett's analysis includes,

...end-users may be pushed to action by pending lawsuits. In early November, SCO’s counsel David Boise stated that they would file an end-user lawsuit within the next three months. We believe SCO has little choice but to follow through with this commitment to retain credibility.

Here is an article (from Federal Computer Week 2003-12-23) describing a Linux end-user who will certainy get a lot of attention.

Linux operating systems continue to gather steam in government information technology circles, with officials at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts announcing they would support the open standard as the basis for mission-sensitive applications.

[ Reply to This | # ]

$0.31 vs. $0.39
Authored by: mflaster on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 03:04 PM EST
Without this benefit, pro forma eps was $.31 versus our estimate of $.39 when using a constant 16.962 million shares. Our original estimate had accounted for the future conversion of preferred stock.
Oh, look at that! Everyone was boasting how they earned $0.44 instead of the estimated $.33. But Dion points out that apples to apples, they actually missed the target by $.08!

Mike

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 03:07 PM EST
The 6000 Letters are going to thier own licensee's I belive. IT would be
interesting to know the opinon of the Analyst on whether or not this is likely
to negativly, be neutral, or positively affect customer relations. If negativly
does he see an impact to there earnings.

I have never received threatening letters from a software company, so I don't
know how common it is. I know I would be on the phone asking them what the heck
is going on and wondering what it would take to move off the software.

On the other hand I have never licensed software to be used in a product I sold,
so I don't know what is common business practice. The only thing I do know is
I do not like to be threatened. And to be be burdened at the end of the year
clearly is unaceptable. SCO keeps claiming 7 out of the top ten retailiers.
NOTE TO SCO. The Christmas season represents up to 90% of retailer's profits
for the year. Perhaps you should give them a break and send the letter to them
in february. Just a thought. In my business I have to know my customer and
try to work with them even when we are having difficulties.

Heeding such advice is only useful if you business is selling software to
retailers. IF you are just in it to sue on the other hand, then this is the
perfect tactic: Hit hard when they are down. Good leagle strategy, poor business
strategy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 03:13 PM EST
Not a bad write up, they are correctly skeptical of SCOX’s performance because
much of it depends upon a public PR campaign that can easily blow up in their
face.

I found several things interesting with this report. Boies & company have
received $16 million in 2003? I thought it was more like $10 million.

There’s this quote: “Where is that one file that a reasonable observer (i.e.
typical business manager) would agree violates SCO’s IP?”

A very good question in deed. They point out repeatedly that SCO has shown no
credible evidence to back up their claim. Darl can say whatever he wants in
front of a reporter, he is clearly not convincing the people that matter,
business managers. If SCO can’t convince the people that spend the money at
companies of the validity of SCO’s claims, they don’t have a prayer in growing
their IP business.

This fact also makes any court confrontation with an end user a crap shoot since
I don’t think SCO has a good way to predict what any particular company will do
if they are sued. SCO needs them to roll over and settle. SCO might get someone
who will fight tooth and nail with RedHat’s $1,000,000 legal fund.

But all of this is moot in my opinion. The entire situation with Novell I think
trumps the idea of SCO suing anyone for copyright infringement in the near
future, outside of IBM with whom they are already litigating. SCO v Novell is
definitely next on the list lawsuits. Hence the letters to UNIX licensees, they
can sue anyone who is a current licensee who uses Linux for violating the terms
of the Unix license agreement after SCO revokes the license. It’s a way around
suing for copyright infringement.

The analysis is right; mounting a campaign on copyright infringement is very
risky and can easily blow up in SCO’s face. The 1st person that goes to court
will, I think, easily get a stay or dismissal based on the pending argument with
Novell and ownership of the copyrights in question. Look for the next couple of
quarterly reports to suck and be full of FUD.

-pooky

---
IANAL, etc...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Bullsh@#$t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 03:37 PM EST
    • Re: Bullsh@#$t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 04:55 PM EST
Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: K5Guy on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 03:24 PM EST
There was no mention in the analysis of history repeating itself. What happens
if IBM finds during discovery that Linux code is buried in SCO's beloved Unix?


This is just speculation. But it could happen.

IANAL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 03:33 PM EST
Novell should send a follow-up letter to each Fortume 1000 company informing
them that Novell is contesting SCO's assertion of copyright, and that no action
is neccesary until that issue is resolved fully. Wouldn't that just chap 'ol
Darl's ass!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: mdchaney on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 03:55 PM EST
This is more evidence that Linus needs to get off his butt and start the
counter-offensive. Why do I say this? The analyst spends a few paragraphs
explaining why the header files that SCO mentioned are probably not
copyrightable. He didn't mention even once the fact that Linus wrote those
himself.

Linus et al may not understand this, but these guys don't read Slashdot or
LKML. They do read press releases. They do pay attention to lawsuits. It's
obvious that someone needs to be getting the word out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is the report right: will SCO's extortion work?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 04:45 PM EST
The report makes an interesting prediction that SCO's lawsuit extortion will produce an increasing revenue stream, as long as they choose their victims carefully.

The idea is that SCO asks for $50,000 (or whatever) to not file a lawsuit that will cost them twice as much or more in legal fees, even if SCO loses. If they get one victim to pay, the next victim will be easier, and so forth, until finally they make a mistake and choose one that will actually fight. Then the whole gravy train grinds to a halt.

However, isn't this exactly the scenario that Red Hat's defense fund is designed to defeat?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones: The only firm with common sense
Authored by: JMonroy on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 04:55 PM EST
I find this article fair, and I commend the author on a fine job.

Earlier, as one might recall, I wrote a post (as the Mon. conference took place) on how the Decatur Jones analyst NAILED Darl.

Of all the analysts, Dion Cornett of Decatur really seemed to be the only one to really press Darl for answers regarding licensing revenue resulting from the initial 1500 letter campaign.

Darl really squirmed on the answer, as I recall. The response from McBride was senseless, manipulative, and most definitely evasive. It went something like (add parody):

Dion: "Can you tell us how many of the 1500 companies have licensed your software?"

McBride: "Uuhhh, we have many who have licensed from SCO."

Dion: "Can you be more specific?"

McBride:"WOW... great question! I loved that question! Did you know that was a great question (looking a CFO-Bob)??!? Phew...! Let me collect myself, because, you, my friend, posed a great question. Ummmm.... there have been many companies that stated, 'Show us the offending code and we'll license your software.' And you know what? We are going to do just that... soon! Very soon. By the way, did I mention that was a great question??? Thanks Dion, love ya babe. Oh, and tell your mother I said hello. She is such a great woman... (looking at CFO-Bob) did I tell you Dion's mom was a great woman??? <long pause> Uhhh... did I answer your question???"

Dion: Whatever... (heads to office to write stinging rating)


:-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 04:57 PM EST
better, but still way to nice to SCOG.


---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux

[ Reply to This | # ]

FOSS press releases
Authored by: JRinWV on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 05:05 PM EST
I agree totally with a previous poster - it is well past time for the
foundations, standards bodies, and other open/free software organizations to
begin releasing well-crafted press releases to counteract the fountains of
hot-air being pumped by The SCO Group.

Active resistance, when possible, is far better than reactive resistance; when
you are under attack, then reaction is far better than nothing, no activity at
all.

These press releases should contain appropriate to-the-point quotes from Linus
and other senior members of the Linux developer community, in order to provide
ammunition for those who understand the situation.

Something most folks don't know or understand: Reporters can't report their
own expertise - they have to find someone else to quote. If that's hard or
impossible, then that viewpoint just doesn't make it into the story. If they
have a press release in hand (or on screen) with dynamic quotes that bear on the
day's issue, with quotes from the attackers' past utterances that contradict
today's spin, then the battle can be joined.

Otherwise, there isn't a battle, there's a re-write of the press release.
Without dueling Press Releases the battle is only fought in court by the
lawyers. Open source will probably win that battle, but it may severely affect
the war if that battle is won too late.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Analysis missed Redhat's fund and IBM's counterclaims
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 05:06 PM EST
The analysis was well done and was balanced, but should have stressed the risks
to SCO's profitability engendered by the following items:

a. IBM's patent and copyright infringement claims; IBM's case is solid, and
might even win a summary judgment. Such a judgment would show that SCO does not
have clean hands, and would weaken any copyright infringement suits SCO might
file. It would also open the door for copyright suits and criminal complaints
by FSF, Redhat, and others. FSF, in particular might get an influx of copyright
assignments from Linux kernel developers. Many of these copyrights would be for
code published less than 5 years ago, so the copyrights would be presumed valid
in court. The resulting costs and damages might drive SCO (and maybe Canopy)
into bankruptcy. The criminal complaints might drive SCO's insiders into
jail.

b. Redhat may also win a summary judgment which would have similar effects.

c. SCO appears to be trying to drive away its customers. It is hard to believe
that any new customers would come to SCO after last week's threatening letters
to 6000 customers. Customers have already been advised to set up an exit plan
to stop using SCO's products, because SCO might not be there to support its
products. These letters can be expected to accelerate those plans, decreasing
SCO's revenues further.

d. Redhat's Open Source Now fund is in the process of being set up to accept
individual donations, last I heard. I expect to donate, and I bet that many
other Linux users will do the same. This fund will encourge defendents to fight
rather than settle, so the likelihood that defendents will settle is decreased,
and SCO's license revenue along with it.

I might donate $699. "Millions for defense; not one cent for
tribute." I would prefer to donate to a fund that had provisions similar
to the following:
(1) The first 10 eligible persons or corporations ("eligible
defendents") sued by SCO for copyright infringement of SCO copyrights in
Linux modules will be indemnified by the fund as follows:
(a) If the defendent agrees to settle the suit within six months of filing,
the fund will pay the defendent $1, and no further indemnification is provided.
The defendent would them be ineligible for further support from the fund.
Otherwise:
(b) The defendent is responsible for the first $699 of attorney and court
costs and damages paid to SCO.
(c) The fund indemnifies the eligible defendent for the remainder of costs
and damages up to a limit of the minimum of $1,000,000 and a pro-rata share of
the fund's net assets, divided equally between all eligible defendents whose
costs and damages exceed their pro-rata share.
(d) The fund will provide free legal advice to the eligible defendent,
including templates for common legal filings which might be made.
(2) The fund will issue press releases periodically to inform the public of
the number of eligible defendents and the related costs to the fund.
(3) The fund's trustees are empowered to add plaintiffs other than SCO to a
list of those filing suits claiming that a GPL'd program violates their
intellectual property. In exercising their discretion, the trustees shall
consider the likelihood that the suit is frivolous, the aim being to protect the
open source community from frivolous lawsuits.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SORRY - DUPS - IDIOT MAXIMUS ID
Authored by: JMonroy on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 05:13 PM EST
PJ - sorry about the triple post. While you were editing, I was posting, and I
kept getting a 'posting denied' error. Being the usual geek, I kept hitting
BACK then Submit. Can you delete this, and the 2 dups above? Thx. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Courts...
Authored by: the_flatlander on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 05:13 PM EST
If the courts are using Linux then, clearly, Darl will be unable to get a fair
hearing. He'll want a change of venue. Like to Mars, or as another Groklawyer
suggested, the seventh planet out from the sun....

Happy Holidays to all! Especially PJ!

TFL

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 05:14 PM EST
Folks, we had a problem, because I put up the wrong version of the
document and had to switch it. I'm sorry if some of the comments got
swept overboard with it. It's entirely my goofup.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Comment on SCOX
Authored by: John Goodwin on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 06:01 PM EST

Maybe someone can help understand the close today:

bid 15.65 x 300 - ask 18.41 x 2000
last sale was 17.01

I haven't been in equities IT since before decimalization,
but isn't a nearly 3 point spread a problem for the
market maker? That has to mean a very thin market or
poorly regulated market. The spread used to be what
the market maker collected, to compensate for the risk of
making a market.

Also, the market is unbalanced-- the 300 shares who want to buy (Limit buys) are
small compared to the 2000 shares who
want to sell. Any explanations?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Out of context, but oh so juicy....
Authored by: darkonc on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 06:46 PM EST
From the Courts Office article:
Linux on Intel's X86 processors was selected as the best value replacement based on the operating system's open standards, marketplace acceptance and cost-performance ratio, Redmond said.
So "Redmond" finally accepts that Linux is the better value proposition, eh?

---
Powerful, committed communication. Transformation touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 06:48 PM EST
This looks like an exercise in extended make-believe.
Can't anyone yell that this "Emperor has no clothes"?
It's like they want to say it but won't say it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Questions about quality of outside counsel
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 07:17 PM EST
"We have questions about the quality and motives of SCO's
outside legal counsel"

*Ouch* Poor Boies ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

2%-3% "core business" growth?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 07:23 PM EST
Decatur thinks SCO's "core business" (no, not lawsuits) will grow
2% to 3% "sequentially" by quarter next year. That seems extremely
optimistic. I don't see why anyone would want to do business with SCO. I would
be surprised if there wasn't negative growth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: Stefan on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 07:37 PM EST
A company with P/E (price/earnings) above 90 and the insiders only selling, not
buying, stock. How much more obvious can it be? Specially when they don't want
to show any REAL evidence to back up their claims.

In my part of the world a P/E over 30 is considered expensive stock...

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT. What if ???
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 07:56 PM EST
I'm just curious. Assuming that 7th planet from Sol implodes, and SCO somehow
proves that they have a valid copyright to something in Linux... let's ignore
any potential remedy for now. The cost of this battle may bankrupt them. If
that's the case, what happens to the ability to use any such copyrighted
material for a defunct copyright holder? In the case of an individual, the
copyright continues after death, but what about in the case of a company?

What happens to those companies who run their business on SCO software? From
what I understand here, many of the licenses are not perpetual.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Favorite quote from Analysis
Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 08:51 PM EST
Here's my favorite, and refreshing, quote from the analysis:
Unlike typical industry analysts and magazine editors, we never collect a single dollar from the companies we write about.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' Math
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 09:36 PM EST
Doesn't the Dacatur Jones analysis have "math issues" in 2004? The
2004 Cost of revenue numbers appear to be off by about 15 million. Using the
numbers from DJ SCO will actually have a negative year in 2004 (despite the
unqualified core revenue growth).

IMO, I would seriously qualify the conclusions of any analysis (even one I
liked) that is based on faulty (fourth grade?) math.

Just my $0.02 though.

Sincerely,
John Marasco

[ Reply to This | # ]

Federal Court Software
Authored by: cmcnabb on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 09:38 PM EST
"According to officials, the Linux systems will back several critical
applications supported at court locations throughout the United States,
including court and probation/pretrial services case management, finance and
accounting."

I set some of these systems up about 4 years ago before I left the private
sector for the calmer hills of the University. The systems I set up were for
managing Federal Juries, including Grand Juries. They consisted of an
Intel/Solaris box which ran a Sybase database system. The server, one in each
federal court, was accessed by a number of windows based clients.

The scary part of that job was that if the SOFTWARE used to select the jury was
ever challenged I could be subpoened to testify as the original installer of the
software.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: surak on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 11:32 PM EST

In other words, if Linus had used #define KILLTHISDAMNTHING 9 it would have made no difference whatsoever in the actual program created. (He would have had to use KILLTHISDAMNTHING everywhere that SIGKILL currently appears, but that's not relevant either.)

That's *almost* true. The thing is that UNIX userland programs are *expecting* 'SIGKILL' (and the other signals) to be defined in signal.h. One reason you might include signal.h is to get exactly that table of symbols to signal numbers. That's because your program should *not* be hard-coded to think that SIGKILL == 9, it should just include the kernel headers that define what SIGKILL is. Now, technically, it probably wouldn't matter whether SIGKILL was defined as 9 or 69, but is set to 9 for sake of *compatibility* with aforementioned dumbasses that hardcode SIGKILL == 9 or for compatibility with iBCS2, for instance. Courts have ruled that implementing common APIs for the sake of compatibility is not infringement, BTW.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: RSC on Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 02:53 AM EST
OUCH!!!!!

The courts SCO is using to try and kill Linux are Using Linux???.

Can we expect a lawsuit files againts the courts for copyright infringments?

That would be funny. ;-)


RSC

---
----
An Australian who IS interested.

[ Reply to This | # ]

30m Buyout and the Nvell/SCO Asset Purchase Agreement
Authored by: lpletch on Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 05:37 AM EST
AMMENDMENT No.2 TO THE ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT
.......
B.
Except as provided in Section C below, and notwithstanding the provisions of
Article 4.16, Sections (b) and (c) of the Agreement, any potential transaction
with an SVRX licensee which concerns a buy-out of any such licensee's royalty
obligations shall be managed as follows:

1.
Should either party become aware of any such potential transaction, it
will immediately notify the other in writing.

2.
Any meetings and/or negotiations with the licensee will be attended by
both parties, unless agreed otherwise. Novell's participation will be by
personnel who are engaged in corporate business development.

3.
Any written proposal to be presented to the licensee, including drafts
and final versions of any proposed amendments to the SVRX licenses, will be
consented to by both parties prior to its delivery to the licensee, unless
agreed otherwise.

4.
Prior to either parties' unilateral determination as to the suitability
of any potential buy-out transaction, the parties will meet face to face and
analyze the potential merits and disadvantages of the transaction. No such
transaction will be concluded unless the execution copy of the amendment is
consented to in writing by both parties, and either party will have the
unilateral right to withhold its consent should it judge, for any reason
whatsoever, the transaction to be contrary to its economic interests and/or its
business plans and strategy.
........

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another What-If ???
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 11:11 AM EST
Ok... 9 January '04 is rapidly approaching. Let's say SCO delivers some
material to IBM on discovery, but it's not sufficient... and SCO realizes this.
Can they just waltz into the court on the 23rd and unilarerally drop the case?
I would think that they could do this. It would be business suicide to do so,
but I think SCO has already gone beyond that point, and it's clear that they
don't care about long-term business relationships. So, could the Judge then
dismiss the case with prejudice? Or would SCO preempt that by dropping
charges?

The next step, of course (regardless) would be the Lanham Act suits, but in the
case of dropped charges without prejudice it could prolong the overall
litigation timeline and leave room to come back after IBM or others later if
they somehow did uncover some evidence. Many have suggested that prolonging
litigation is in their best interest for a pump & dump scheme, but even that
"non-business model" of SCO's is perhaps suffering some ...um...
stress at the moment. The new model might just be to disrupt the UNIX business
place sufficiently long enough for Microsoft to regain some share against UNIX
and Linux.

What kind of downstream scenarios might dropping the case against IBM create?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: PJ the Brilliant Para
Authored by: Newsome on Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 11:17 AM EST
PJ the Brilliant Para
(with apologies to Robert L. May)

You know MathFox and Br3nda
And Steve-M and Harlan,
arch_dude and `Stupid
And Blacklight and Darron.
But do you recall
The most famous Grokker of all?

PJ the brilliant para
Had a very fact-filled site
And if you ever saw it
You would even say "That's Right!"
All of the normal analysts
Used to laugh and call Tux names
They never let poor Linux
Play in any IT games

Then one foggy Christmas Eve
Big Blue came to say,
"PJ with your crew so bright
Won't you bust SCO's FUD tonight?"
Oh how the penguins loved her
And they shouted out with glee,
"PJ the brilliant Para
You'll go down in history!"

---
Frank Sorenson

[ Reply to This | # ]

Decatur Jones' SCO Analysis
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 11:19 AM EST
The buyout offer most likely came from Darl's imagination.

A distant second would be Sun. They've shown that they'll cave in to
terrorists. They also have the 100 mega-unit China deal, so buying permanent
SCO silence for 30 cents a copy might seem like good short-term business.



---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I am a literate citizen)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why Linux distributors can't payoff SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 12:03 PM EST
SCO’s management has stated that they turned down a buy-out offer from a major vendor in the sum of $30 million. This fee would have assured the vendor an unlimited right to ship Linux without fear of violating SCO’s intellectual property rights. According to CEO Darl McBride, SCO did not accept the deal believing that more money could be earned on a unit basis and fearing that such a buy-out could potentially cap damages in the IBM case.

This sounds very strange strange to me. $30 million is more then their yearly revenue. That is almost 43000 licenses. Also for their PR it would have been very good if they could show that somebody paid for the licenses. Other companies would then also be more inclined to do so.

Any company that wanted to pay that much would at least require to see some evidence. Maybe that was the reason why SCO couldn't accept the offer. They wouldn't be able to show any evidence. The other reason why SCO didn't accept it, could be that there never was an offer and that McBride just lied.

As somebody else already pointed out: How would a vendor be able to pay SCO and still distribute Linux under the GPL. "Anyone who bought Linux from that distributor could turn around and distribute it for free and within a year or two the Linux community would be back exactly where they were before SCO came along."

This is exactly the reason that SCO can not go after distributors. Distributors are no able to pay SCO money and keep on distributing Linux under the GPL.

The consequence of all of this is that we can only end up in 2 situations:

  1. Linux stops existing.
  2. Linux keeps on existing without any proprietary SCO code in it.
In both scenarios SCO will earn NO money.

H@ns

[ Reply to This | # ]

When did SCO last tell the truth?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 12:25 PM EST
I'm serious, people. Was it when they announced the road show? When they
announced the dates for SCO Forum? Not even Cakebread's resignation was a fully
truthful announcment.

Really, help me on this. When was the last time SCO objectively told a truism?
(Start a pool, if necessary.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

My favorite part
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 25 2003 @ 08:39 PM EST
My favorite part:

For the first time, pro forma legal fees will most likely exceed SCOSource
revenue in the January quarter. If included in COGS, these fees would severely
distort margins generated by the core business.

. . .

As we see it, legal team earns significant dollars win or lose, while investors
and SCO management will only benefit given a favorable legal outcome.

To illustrate, during FY03, we estimate that Boies and company collected roughly
$16 million, versus SCO’s $5.3 million in earnings, while still being a long
from from any victory over IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A little bit OT ...
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, December 26 2003 @ 11:19 AM EST
This is the score so far as the SCO Group's allegations of copyrights
violations stand: (1) Novell re-registered for material that is a superset of
the SCO Group's copyrights. Needless to say, the copyrights registrations are
in conflict; (2) Linus Torvalds states that the 60-65 files allegedly in
copyrights violation are a variations of a set of 10-15 files, and the he
authored many of them. But he is not through his analysis yet; (3) The files in
alleged copyrights violations are interface files, and thus not subject to
copyrights legislation.

[ 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 )