|
|
| SCO's Amendment to S3 Lists Novell in Risks Section At Last |
 |
|
Friday, January 16 2004 @ 05:58 PM EST
|
Is SCO reading Groklaw? Immediately after I wrote about the singular lack of any mention that Novell was disputing SCO's copyright claims as a risk factor in their SEC filings, SCO has filed an amendment to their November S3 with the SEC, listing Novell in their risks section. It's here, part of their January 16 Amendment 1 to their S3 prospectus. There is a notice that "the information in this prospectus is not complete" and is subject to further change.
Here is their amended risks section, and because it's so long, I've highlighted the new Novell information:
"Risks Related to the Business
"We do not have a history of profitable operations.
"Our fiscal year ended October 31, 2003 was the first full year our company was profitable in its operating history. Our profitability in fiscal 2003 resulted primarily from revenue we received from our SCOsource licensing initiative. If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services declines, we will need to further reduce operating expenses to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow.
"In our results of operations, we recognize revenue from agreements for support and maintenance contracts and other long-term contracts that have been previously invoiced and are included in deferred revenue. Our deferred revenue balance has declined from $10.1 million as of October 31, 2002 to $5.5 million as of October 31, 2003, and this decline in deferred revenue may continue into future quarters, which may have a negative impact on our operating system platform products revenue. Our future operating system platform revenue may be adversely impacted and may continue to decline if we are unable to replenish these deferred revenue balances with long-term maintenance and support contracts or replace them with other sustainable revenue streams. If we are unable to continue to generate positive cash flow and profitable operations, our operations may be adversely impacted.
"Additionally, as explained in more detail below in the section entitled "Recent Developments," we must account for the issuance of shares of our Series A Convertible Preferred Stock from our October 2003 private placement by bifurcating the value of the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock into a preferred stock component and a derivative component. As of October 31, 2003, we recorded a liability of $15.2 million as the fair value of the derivative component. To account for the derivative component in subsequent periods, we will mark-to-market its value at each balance sheet date and will include in our consolidated statement of operations any changes in value as a component of other income or expense. Changes in the value of the derivative component may be significant because the value of our common stock at each balance sheet date will have a significant impact on the derivative's value. For example, an increase in the value of our common stock by $1.00 may require us to record an expense of approximately $1,000,000, and, conversely, a decrease in our common stock by $1.00 may require us to record income of approximately $1,000,000. If this accounting treatment requires us to record significant expenses in future periods, our profitability in those periods may be adversely impacted.
"Our future SCOsource licensing revenue is uncertain.
"We initiated the SCOsource licensing effort in January 2003 to review the status of UNIX licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify those in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two significant license agreements during fiscal year 2003 and generated $25.8 million in revenue. Due to a lack of historical experience and the uncertainties related to SCOsource licensing revenue, we are unable to estimate the amount and timing of future SCOsource licensing revenue, if any. If we do receive revenue from this source, it may be sporadic and fluctuate from quarter to quarter. Our SCOsource initiative is unlikely to produce a stable or predictable revenue stream for the foreseeable future. Additionally, the success of this initiative may depend on the perceived strength of our intellectual property rights and contractual claims regarding UNIX, including, the strength of our claim that unauthorized UNIX System V source code and derivatives are prevalent in Linux.
"We may not prevail in our legal action against IBM, and unintended consequences of our action against IBM and initiatives to assert our intellectual property rights may adversely affect our business.
"On or about March 6, 2003, we filed a complaint against IBM alleging breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and unfair competition. The matter is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint centers on IBM's activities regarding the UNIX operating system that underlies our UNIX-based operating systems and IBM's AIX UNIX-based operating system. The complaint alleges that IBM obtained information concerning the UNIX source code from us and inappropriately used and distributed that information in connection with its efforts to promote the Linux operating system.
"On or about June 16, 2003, we filed an amended complaint in the IBM case. The amended complaint essentially restates and realleges the allegations of the original complaint and expands on those claims in several ways. Most importantly, the amended complaint raises new allegations regarding IBM's actions and breaches through the products and services of Sequent, which IBM acquired. We allege that IBM breached the Sequent agreement in several ways similar to those set forth above and we are seeking damages flowing from those breaches. We are also seeking injunctive relief on several of our claims.
"IBM has filed a response and counterclaim to the complaint, including a demand for jury trial. We have filed an answer to the IBM counterclaim denying the claims and asserting affirmative defenses.
"In its counterclaim, as amended on September 25, 2003, IBM asserts that we do not have the right to terminate its UNIX license or assert claims based on our ownership of UNIX intellectual property against them or others in the Linux community. In addition, IBM asserts that we have breached the GNU General Public License and have infringed on certain patents held by IBM. IBM's counterclaims include claims for breach of contract, violation of the Lanham Act, unfair competition, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, unfair and deceptive trade practices, promissory estoppel, copyright infringement and patent infringement. Discovery is ongoing in the case. We intend to vigorously defend against these counterclaims.
"If we do not prevail in our action against IBM, or if IBM is successful in its counterclaim against us, our business and results of operations could be materially harmed. The litigation with IBM and potentially others could be costly, and our costs for legal fees may be substantial and in excess of amounts for which we have budgeted. Additionally, the market price of our common stock may be negatively affected as a result of developments in our legal action against IBM that may be, or may be perceived to be, adverse to us.
"In addition, we have publicly, and in individual letters to 1,500 of the world's largest corporations, cautioned users of Linux that there are unresolved intellectual property issues surrounding Linux that may expose them to unanticipated liability. As a result of these concerns, we have suspended our sales of Linux products. We also have begun delivering written notice to a large number of licensees under our System V UNIX contracts requiring them to, among other things, provide written certification that they are in full compliance with their agreements, including certification that they are not using our proprietary UNIX code in Linux, have not allowed unauthorized use of licensed UNIX code by their employees or contractors and have not breached confidentiality provisions relating licensed UNIX code. Additionally, we have begun notifying selected Linux end users in writing of violations we allege under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act related to SCO's copyrights contained in Linux.
"As a result of our action against IBM and our SCOsource initiatives to protect our intellectual property rights, several participants in the Linux industry and others affiliated with IBM or sympathetic to the Linux movement have taken actions attempting to negatively affect our business and our SCOsource efforts. Linux proponents have taken a broad range of actions against us, including, for example, attempting to influence participants in the markets in which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and services they purchase from us. These actions have been somewhat successful in negatively impacting our business, and we expect that similar efforts likely will continue. There is a risk that participants in our marketplace will negatively view our legal action against IBM and our SCOsource initiatives, and we may lose support from such participants. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our position in the marketplace, our results of operations and our stock price.
"Another recent Linux proponent action has been to initiate several denial of service attacks on our website, which have prevented web users from accessing our website and doing business with us for a period of time. If such attacks continue or if our customers and strategic partners are also subjected to similar attacks, our business and results of operations could be materially harmed.
"Also, some of the more significant participants in the Linux industry have made efforts to ease Linux end users' concerns that their use of Linux may subject them to potential copyright infringement claims from us. For example, Hewlett-Packard and Novell have each established indemnification programs for qualified customers purchasing Linux-based products and services that may potentially become subject to a copyright infringement claims from us. Additionally, Open Source Development Labs, a non-profit organization (OSDL), has established a legal defense fund that will be used to defend Linux users against copyright infringement lawsuits brought by us. It has been reported that OSDL so far has attracted at least $3 million in pledges from contributors including IBM and Intel, among others. Similarly, Red Hat, Inc. has announced it has committed $1 million for a separate fund it created to cover the legal expenses of other companies developing Linux.
"As a further response to our SCOsource initiatives and claim that our UNIX source code has inappropriately been included in Linux, Novell has publicly asserted its belief that it owns certain copyrights in our UNIX System V source code, and it has filed 15 copyright applications with the United States Copyright Office related to UNIX System V. Novell also claims that it has a license to UNIX from us and the right to authorize its customers to use UNIX technology in their internal business operations. Specifically, Novell has also claimed to have retained rights related to legacy UNIX SVRX licenses, including the license with IBM. Novell asserts it has the right to take action on behalf of SCO in connection with such licenses, including termination rights. We have repeatedly asserted that we obtained the UNIX business, source code, claims and copyrights when we acquired the operations of Tarantella (formerly, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.) in May 2001, which had previously acquired all such assets and rights from Novell in September 1995 pursuant to an asset purchase agreement, as amended.
"Notwithstanding our assertions of full ownership of UNIX-related intellectual property rights, as set forth above, including copyrights, the efforts of Novell and the other Linux proponents described above may cause Linux end users to be less willing to purchase from us our SCO Intellectual Property Licenses authorizing their use of our intellectual property contained in the Linux operating system, which may adversely affect our revenue from our SCOsource initiatives. In addition, these efforts may increase the negative view some participants in our market place have regarding our legal action against IBM and our SCOsource initiatives and may contribute to creating confusion in the marketplace about the validity of our claim that the unauthorized use of our UNIX System V source code and derivatives in Linux infringes on our copyrights. Increased negative perception and potential confusion about our claims in our marketplace could impede our continued pursuit of our SCOsource initiatives and negatively impact our business." [emphasis added]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Jude on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:14 PM EST |
How long before they have to list having Darl as CEO in this section?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST |
"... potential copyright infringement claims from us ..."
and here I thought that the entire SCO vs IBM case was about
an alleged contract violation. In other words, "SCO vs IBM"
is nothing more than a sideshow, used in support to try
to shake down Linux users because of unproven "potential copyright
infringement claims". I seriously hope that the "official
press" picks up this blaring inconsitency.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST |
They specifically say Tarantella (formerly SCO) instead of just SCO.
It looks like we have scared them into being honest, at least in their SEC
filings :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pogson on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST |
| Surely the market will notice this! RBC will sell its shares as soon as it can
to recoup its investment and there is nowhere to go but down with all this
"news" which is old hat to us groklawyers. Even the fevered pitch of press
releases will not stop the bleeding now. I wish I had persuaded my wife to sell
short...
---
We used to optimize the innermost loop. Now it fits in the
cache of a chip. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST |
Do ya' get the impression they may be thinking they shouldn't have stepped on
that burning bag on the front porch?
I didn't invent logic - I just use it:^)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:21 PM EST |
It is nice to see that they finally realize their risks - in particular, about
increasing negative views of SCO negatively impacting their business.
I hope they do understand that not many Unix-oriented people are going to buy
any of their products in the future. They probably understand.
How long before their stakeholders finally notice?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:29 PM EST |
Harold McMillan, British PM on what stood against him acheiving his ambitions.
When SCO goes down due to even 2 or 3 of these events materialising, I hope that
the community takes the SCO survivors who've suffered and lost from the
imposition of this nonsense and treats them well. They're not responsible for
the mess that the board of SCO have dumped them in.
--
An interested bystander[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fjaffe on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:29 PM EST |
Still nothing about the risk of having to restate revenue due to the potential
dispute about the legitimacy of their licensing for Sun and MS.
Good thing they reserved the right to modify it again....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jrc on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:31 PM EST |
Note the use of possessives in the reference to the Unix SysV code.
"Novell has publicly asserted its belief that it owns certain copyrights in
our UNIX System V source code..." SCO does not state that the
ownership of the code is in dispute (or at least that they lack clear title to
the code); they imply that they own the code and someone else is trying to take
it from them. This is both disingenuous and dishonest. Such statements sound
more like the deceptions of a devious adolescent than the legal prose of
publically-traded corporation.
Somehow a vision just popped into my
head: Smealgol/Gollum working in the SCO legal department as a legal writer,
hovering over an old green CRT and muttering "my precious....mine, mine,
mine..."
---
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:38 PM EST |
It's interesting that the risk they list with respect to the copyright
controversy with Novell is that Novell has now "publicly asserted its
belief that it owns certain copyrights in our UNIX System V source
code..."
The reason that this is interesting is that most people would consider it a risk
that Novell was asserting a right that would destroy your company -- but SCO
couldn't admit that now because they hadn't included that in previous risk
statements. The only thing that has changed is that now Novell is being public
about it. And that Groklaw is making sure everybody knows about it.
I guess SCO believes that the world revolves around press releases and not the
actual facts.
Thanks to Pamela, her elves, and Novell for forcing SCO to acknowledge the
precariousness of their position.
Thad Beier[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hbo on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:45 PM EST |
.. and may contribute to creating (sic) confusion
in the marketplace about the validity of our claim that the unauthorized use of
our UNIX System V source code and derivatives in Linux infringes on our
copyrights.
Their proofreaders must have missed that one. It
should read " .. may resolve confusion ..", or words to that
effect. 8)
---
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run
over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: p0ssum on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST |
I haven't had time to comment in awhile, but you can be sure I was reading.
Anyhow, once again, you scooped the "real" journalists and did some
great research. If only the "real" journalists were as good as
you....
Kudos!
Paul
---
There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand binary and
those that do not.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PM on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:52 PM EST |
Looks very much like a 'get out of jail' card.
I think that the whole operation so far has actually exceeded Canopy's and
Darl's expectations, and for the last few months anything (especially the pre
programed sale of SCO stock) has been 'super profits'. SCO's equivalent to
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic right up to today has most probably
continued to make a tidy profit at the expense of the suckers (including
Microsoft).
Darl and co seem now to recognise that the time has come to prepare to launch
the lifeboats while mopping up the last bit of profit during next week. In the
unlikely event SCO can hoodwink Judge Wells next Friday, so much the better for
Canopy and Darl.
Perhaps there will be one final stock price bloom when a final 'supply driven
short squeeze' is applied next week as SS SCO slips to its watery grave. Larra
Didio will no doubt be standing beside and supporting the Captain until the
last. It may even be too quick for the squeeze to work.
Perhaps Darl can plea bargain for two years in a comfy jail in exchange for
ratting on his former Canopy masters.
Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of openings for business people
short on morals and excessively long on a 'can do' attitude.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:52 PM EST |
SCO really does have feet of clay. Within two days of Novell's disclosure of
correspondence, SCO revises their SEC filings. This is the corporate equivalent
of a guilty start.
I suppose they were damned no matter what. Revising the story immediately looks
bad in one way, waiting gives yet another bad appearance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:52 PM EST |
One has to wonder if they would have filed this amendment if Novell hadn't
published all those letters. Would they have kept quiet and tried to make people
believe there wasn't an ongoing copyright ownership dispute with Novell?
I also think that SCO themselves don't believe they own all the copyrights
since Novell said in a press release last year that SCO had repeatedly requested
that Novell transfer copyrights to SCO, and Novell refused.
Unless SCO has official written copyright transfers for SysV from Novell to
Santa Cruz and then from Santa Cruz to Caldera, they have no proof of owning the
copyrights.
We must also note that SCO's amendment doesn't seem to mention the audit
request by Novell, the back dues that Novell mentioned, the fact that SCO may
not even have had the right to enter into the Microsoft and Sun agreements
without approval by Novell, and that SCO may owe 95% of the Microsoft and Sun
money to Novell.
I'm betting that there will be a lawsuit between Novell and SCO soon, and it
will only accelerate SCO's decline into inevitable bankruptcy and destruction.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dkpatrick on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:54 PM EST |
1. "Another recent Linux proponent action has been to initiate several
denial of service attacks on our website, which have prevented web users from
accessing our website and doing business with us for a period of time. If such
attacks continue or if our customers and strategic partners are also subjected
to similar attacks, our business and results of operations could be materially
harmed."
An interesting leap of knowledge. There's still question about the legitimacy
of their claims and there is no concrete information at all about who was
responsible.
2. I assume this was released after the market close. The stock is down a tad.
3. "In addition, we have publicly, and in individual letters to 1,500 of
the world's largest corporations, cautioned users of Linux that there are
unresolved intellectual property issues surrounding Linux that may expose them
to unanticipated liability." This again is disengenuous. I was under the
impression the letters were telling people to pay up; that SCO had the IP.
These amendments are intended to state a company's liabilities dispassionately;
a statement of the situation. SCO handles it as another marketing opportunity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:55 PM EST |
I'm glad to see SCO starting to make at least a little bit of sense in what
they say. Even so, I seriously doubt that it will be enough to keep Darl and
his accomplices out of jail.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:56 PM EST |
Humor me for a moment.
Is there any possible way that SCOG or its parent company (Canopy?) can use an
overwhelming defeat to its advantage?
Is there some way to use "claimed losses" ($1,400 per processor that
SCOG 'should have been' paid but did not because the IBM lawsuit failed, for
example) to its advantage? Like, is there some way to describe this as a loss,
and use that artificial loss to hide profit from some other part of the parent
company and thus evade taxation? Or something?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 07:59 PM EST |
Maybe PJ or some other knowledgeable person could help clarify something that I
cannot figure out.
Why would someone who owns something outright (like SCO says the own Unix) pay
100% of all profit made by selling (or licensing) this something that they
outright own, to some other company.
SCO gives 100% of the profit from licensing their flavor of Unix to Novell.
Then, Novell remits 5% of the profit back to SCO as an administrative fee.
So, why in the world would you give someone else all of your profit for the
privilege of selling your own stuff???
I just don't get it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: k4_pacific on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:00 PM EST |
"We may not prevail in our legal action against IBM..."
This is refreshing coming from them. They are indirectly almost admitting that
they have considered the possibility that they might be wrong. Almost.
"Something's rotten in the state of Utah"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blang on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:01 PM EST |
| Increased negative perception and potential confusion on our claims in our
marketplace could impede our continued pursuit of our SCOsource initiatives and
negatively impact our business.
Who's confusing who? I seem to remember
a very entertaining "essay" by a certain Darl McBride, about the constitution,
patents and copyrights. It is not the confusion that undermines SCOx bizniz.
It is the certainty that we're dealing with a sheep in wolf's clothing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Utah on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:02 PM EST |
Linux proponents have taken a broad range of actions against us,
including, for example, attempting to influence participants in the markets in
which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and
services they purchase from us.
...
Another recent Linux proponent
action has been to initiate several denial of service attacks on our website,
which have prevented web users from accessing our website and doing business
with us for a period of time.
Does anyone believe for a second
that the alleged anti-competitive practices and DoS attacks pose a threat
comparable to, say, Novell's audit? It's amazing how SCO can use a SEC filing
to slip in a few unfounded accusations agains the Linux community.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:04 PM EST |
"Oh, we forget to mention Novell... here ya go then... and by the way,
thanks for the profits we earned from investors during the six months they
_should_ have known about Novell but we withheld the info..."
Gosh, looks like it's okay for SCO to kiss and make up in arrears for
omissions, but not for Linux to remove alleged infringing code in arrears...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:15 PM EST |
SCO understand the word 'notwithstanding' correctly now, compared to their
crucial lack of understanding of the word in the Novell letters.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rakaz on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:16 PM EST |
"Furthermore, in response to our complaint against IBM and the assertions
we made against the Linux operating system, the open source community has
undertaken efforts to create a negative view towards SCO. A website called
Groklaw has been founded by Pamela Jones which tries to refute our continued
efforts to protect our Intellectual Property rights. This website might create
an increased negative perception and might cause confusion about our claims,
which could have a negative impact on our business. Also, research from this
website might also affect our compliant against IBM and Novell’s assertions
regarding the copyrights of UNIX System V source code. Shareholders of SCO
should consider the possibility of a decrease in market value of shared in
response to articles published on Groklaw."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:18 PM EST |
Anything in there about a risk of action from the Federal Trace Commission? I
only see other countries mentioned.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: red floyd on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:25 PM EST |
I asked this on the Tibbets page, but it was way down, and I'd really like to
find out about this.
Since SCO is now starting to mention risks, and their shareholders are
interested...
Does the fact that directors (who were well aware of a 12 Jan deadline from the
court) were unavailable to provide evidence ordered by the court in a $3 Billion
lawsuit constitute a breach of fiduciary duty?
If so, what recourse do shareholders have? I'm thinking about RBC, since they
probably have the most influence/pull with SCO right now...
---
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:29 PM EST |
As a NAL who has had a long-running interest in Copyright law, I've been
wondering if the Amendment SCO points to on the transfer of the Copyrights
satisfies the Federal requirement of a copyright transfer. Specifically, 17 USC
2 204 says:
§ 204. Execution of transfers of copyright
ownership
- (a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by
operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or
memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights
conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.
- (b) A certificate of
acknowledgment is not required for the validity of a transfer, but is prima
facie evidence of the execution of the transfer if —
- (1) in the case of
a transfer executed in the United States, the certificate is issued by a person
authorized to administer oaths within the United States; or
- (2) in the case
of a transfer executed in a foreign country, the certificate is issued by a
diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or by a person authorized
to administer oaths whose authority is proved by a certificate of such an
officer.
Source: Copyright Law of the
United States of America at the U.S. Copyright Office
And further, it
seems to me that any meaningful "instrument of conveyance, or a note or
memorandum of the transfer" must, with specificity, state the the nature of the
things conveyed. IMHO, "whatever you need to run the business" just doesn't cut
it as an "instrument of conveyance".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hdw on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:39 PM EST |
Is it just me or is there a point behind this being released on friday evening?
After the markets have closed?
// hdw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:50 PM EST |
You know... I just realized something.
SCO has invented a new form of stock manipulation!
It's a version of pump-and-dump, but it relies on the use of a technique that
Internet users have known about for years: trolling. Trolling creates lots of
"buzz." (Post something about evolution in
soc.religion.christianity or about drilling in ANWR in sci.environment if you
want to see this in action.) The thing about the markets is that the markets in
the short term run on buzz, especially the highly speculative casino markets of
today. Essentially, any mildly positive publicity can cause a stock bubble to
form since people will invest on the speculation that others will invest on the
basis of the news... and so on...
What SCO has done is to run around blaring a klaxon about how they're going to
sue the world. The result: everyone invests on the speculation that others will
fall for it and on the belief that they will be smart enough to get out before
everyone else does. Voila! Instant bubble.
SCO didn't miscalculate when they started their whining about suing the world
for using Linux. They were not surprised that throngs of Linux-zealots and most
of the tech industry would react with boos, hisses, shock, and lots and lots of
clucking. They counted on this to become the OJ Simpson trial of IP lawsuits.
They counted on the noise to pump their stock price.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:53 PM EST |
<b><i>For additional information concerning the placement of the
Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, the rights and preferences of the Series A
Convertible Preferred Stock, the execution of the licensing agreement with
Microsoft, and our plans for the application of proceeds, please see our report
on Form 8-K dated October 17, 2003.</i></b>
Is it just me or does this seem to be saying Microsoft is the recipient of that
$50 million worth of stock? Is there any way to get a copy of that Form 8-K?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PM on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 08:54 PM EST |
I have never thought of it quite like that. However publishing the letters in
their entirety is probably OK under 'fair comment' etc provisions of the
Copyright Act and the 'free speech' provision of the First Amendment of the US
Constitution, whereas using them as a template for your own correspondence would
not be OK.
An important sanction in dealing with hucksters is your ability to publish
threatening, bullying latters produced by them or their lawyers. Naturally they
would rather you did not publish them or allow them to be published by
newspapers, consumer advocacy magazines etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mac586 on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 09:18 PM EST |
| I read through this one slack jawed. Is this the first time the SCO bastards
have told the truth?? I question the references to the the DOS attacks
(still!), but this risk amendment may be the best literary effort yet from
Lindon.
I remember the comment posted questioning the exclusion of Novell's
position concerning copyright ownership from the SCO SEC filings, and have
watched the story grow as PJ posted her commentary and her research. The timing
of this is "delicious", and sets the stage for the upcoming court
date.
Groklaw benefits from having "many eyes", just like Open Source. The
updated risk statement, since it was issued as isolated commentary, should draw
the immediate attention of journalists and financial analysts.
What new
lies will be unleashed in order to protect the stock price?
What new suits
will be filed?
Or, will it all come tumbling down?
I think I'll get some
popcorn for the last act, and celebrate with a cold beer. Stay tuned. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 09:23 PM EST |
"We have repeatedly asserted that we obtained the UNIX business, source
code, claims and copyrights when we acquired the operations of Tarantella
(formerly, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.) in May 2001, which had previously
acquired all such assets and rights from Novell in September 1995 pursuant to an
asset purchase agreement, as amended."
And Novenll has repeatedly demonstrated contractual obligations that show that
it was not an outright, unencumbered sale to oldSCO.
I remember religious leaders kept asserting that the sun moved around the earth
too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: koa on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 09:37 PM EST |
I have a question, isn't it the singular point of the legal documents in
question to lay out the terms to an agreement in black and white so that things
like this do not occur? Why is it possible to draw such vast points of view on
these legal documents and agreements?
When they wrote these agreements didn't they prepare them properly?
Are the terms of these agreements vague enough for such broad interpretatons?
Am I missing something?
Could there be the possibility of some typo somewhere in these agreements that
leaves loopholes for SCO to drive a truck through? We all know the
"intent" of the agreements, however, whos to say the person
preparing the agreements wasn't bleeding from the eyes after writing legalese
for hours on end?
---
...move along...nothing to see here...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: roadwarrior on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 09:55 PM EST |
We do not have a history of profitable operations.
Our future
SCOsource licensing revenue is uncertain.
We may not prevail in our legal
action against IBM, and unintended
consequences of our action against IBM and
initiatives to assert our
intellectual property rights may adversely affect our
business.
The efforts of Novell and the other Linux proponents described
above may cause Linux end users to be less willing to purchase from us
our SCO
Intellectual Property Licenses.
I think those four quotes pretty much
sum up the entire thing. Sure
doesn't look good from an investor standpoint. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 10:37 PM EST |
I sent the following to theregister in response to their article
discussing the failure of SCO to answer IBM's interrogatory #12. I am trying
spread the word as widely as possible that I think that SCO deliberately defied
the 12/12 court order. The risk of losing the law suit has suddenly
escalated.
This is in response to your article at
SCO surrenders claims
to System V?
I would like to see my response
published.
The title of the article should have been: SCO defies court
order.
Like everyone else, except IBM, I am still waiting to see the 60
page supplemental response, but I have additional information from public
statements by SCO.
In its press releases and letters to its customers,
SCO claims that violations of its copyrights are in the Linux kernel. On
December 5,SCO's lawyer, Keven McBride, said in court that SCO would be filing
copyright claims against IBM "in a few days, or no less than a week." Very
peculiar phrasing!
On December 12, SCO was compelled by court order to
answer ALL IBM questions with specificity by January 12. One of those questions
was:INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify, with specificity (by file and line of
code), (a) all source code and other material in Linux (including but not
limited to the Linux kernel, any Linux operating system and any Linux
distribution) to which plaintiff has rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's
rights, including but not limited to whether and how the code or other material
derives from UNIX.
On 1/13/04, in the interview
SCO
shows IBM the code, SCO spokesman Bruce Stowell said: "Monday's response
included no examples of copyright violations. "We've not introduced copyright
infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that
it's a contract issue."
SCO could have made arguments like this before
it was ordered to respond to IBM's questions without further discussion. Now
it's too late.
The order said to identify all rights that SCO claimed.
It was not limited to rights that SCO was currently claiming as part of its suit
against IBM, and, in my opinion, even includes the code contributed by SCO to
Linux.
If, as Stowell said, SCO did not specify any copyrights that
it owns in Linux, then either it is not claiming to own any such copyrights, or
it has not complied with the court order. If SCO now officially declines to
claim ownership of any such copyrights, then it is hard to see how they could
claim them in any later suit against a Linux user or distributor. If SCO does
claim ownership, it has blatantly defied the court order, and the judge can
order sanctions. My guess is that part of the sanctions would be to bar SCO
from suing anyone on any claims that it failed to specify in its 1/12 response
to the compel order. The judge might also order SCO to show cause why it should
not be held in contempt, and why it should not suffer sanctions for failing to
comply with the order.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 10:56 PM EST |
SEC rules require the statement that the "information is not
complete"
to be used on preliminary prospectuses. See the rule at the bottom of
this web page:
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/regS-K/SK501.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 10:57 PM EST |
Am I the only one who came away from reading this verbal flatulance with the
impression that SCO realizes their house of cards is build on an earthquake
fault, yet intends to add a sun deck and pool?
With every statement/document out of Utah I keep seeing a mental picture of
Capt. Smith telling the terrified passengers not to worry, "Titanic won't
sink, we're just washing down the decks with extreme prejudice".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 10:59 PM EST |
But I don't see mention of the 95% license fee claimed by Novell against
pre-existing SVRX licenses. And it's not in the balance sheet either (as far as
I understand).
Isn't that a risk as well?
---
JJJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 11:12 PM EST |
I find it interesting that they include the Novell/OSDL indemnification and
defense funds as risks. Their core business _really is_ litigation.
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 11:31 PM EST |
Just thought I'd go through their filing and bullet
their risks since I
haven't seen it here yet. I think they
are very telling and much of what they
say is what we have
been saying for months.
- We do
not have a history of
profitable operations.
- Our
future SCOsource licensing
revenue is uncertain.
- We may not prevail in our
efforts to enforce our intellectual
property
rights,
and unintended consequences of
asserting
our intellectual property rights may
adversely affect our
business.
- Our assertions surrounding our
UNIX
intellectual property may subject us to
additional legal
proceedings.
- If our SCO branding effort is
not
accepted or causes market confusion, our
business may be
adversely
affected.
- If our recently launched
products and
services are not accepted in the
marketplace, our
business may be
adversely affected.
- Fluctuations in our operating
results or the failure of our operating results to
meet the
expectations of public market analysts and
investors may negatively
impact our stock price.
- We rely on our indirect
sales
channel for distribution of our products, and any
disruption of our
channel at any level could adversely affect the
sales of our
products.
- If the market for UNIX
continues to
contract, it may adversely affect our
business.
- We operate in a highly
competitive market and face significant
competition from a variety
of current and potential sources: many of our
current and potential
competitors have greater financial and technical
resources than we
do; thus, we may fail to compete
effectively.
- Our competitive position could
decline if we are unable
to obtain additional
financing.
- Our foreign-based
operations
and sales create special problems, including the
imposition of
governmental controls and fluctuations in currency
exchange rates
that could hurt our results.
- The impact of
domestic and
global economic conditions may continue to
adversely impact
our
operations.
- If we are unable to retain key
personnel in an intensely competitive environment,
our operations
could
be adversely affected.
- Our stock price is
volatile.
- This offering may have an adverse
impact on the market value of our stock.
- Risks
associated with the
potential exercise of our options
outstanding.
- Our private placement and this
offering may adversely
impact the holders of our
common stock.
- The
holders of shares of Series A
Convertible Preferred Stock have preferential
rights upon
liquidation that could adversely affect the
holders of our
common
stock.
- The rights of the selling
stockholders as holders of shares of Series A
Convertible Preferred
Stock may prevent or make it more difficult for us
to raise
additional
funds or take other significant company
actions.
- Our board of directors' right to
authorize additional shares of
preferred stock
could adversely
impact the rights of holders of our
common
stock.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define
IANAL
#endif [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 11:40 PM EST |
| PJ, everyone is reading Groklaw. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: scott_R on Friday, January 16 2004 @ 11:48 PM EST |
| "Additionally, as explained in more detail below in the section entitled
"Recent Developments," we must account for the issuance of shares of our Series
A Convertible Preferred Stock from our October 2003 private placement by
bifurcating the value of the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock into a
preferred stock component and a derivative component. As of October 31, 2003, we
recorded a liability of $15.2 million as the fair value of the derivative
component. To account for the derivative component in subsequent periods, we
will mark-to-market its value at each balance sheet date and will include in our
consolidated statement of operations any changes in value as a component of
other income or expense. Changes in the value of the derivative component may be
significant because the value of our common stock at each balance sheet date
will have a significant impact on the derivative's value. For example, an
increase in the value of our common stock by $1.00 may require us to record
an expense of approximately $1,000,000, and, conversely, a decrease in our
common stock by $1.00 may require us to record income of approximately
$1,000,000. If this accounting treatment requires us to record significant
expenses in future periods, our profitability in those periods may be adversely
impacted."
Did I miss something? It seems that though SCO got their 50+
million (60?), they still want money. Yes, I knew they'd burn through it fast,
but this looks more like they asked for more, and couldn't get it (or
conversely, someone asked for some of that money back). In return, they're
basically banking their survival over the next few quarters on the hope that the
stock DECLINES.
In addition, from my (limited) knowledge of the fun ways this
stuff works, if they don't get a decline soon, they're going to be eating huge
fees just for having these derivitates floating in the market. My instinct
tells me that they're setting the company up to fail, not from the lawsuits
(which makes darl and friends look bad), but from "fluctuations in the
derivatives market", which could be construed as bad luck by some, and might be
defensible in an SEC hearing/shareholder lawsuit.
I.e., the "we're not
financial experts, we just did what we could to keep the company afloat"
argument. Even if they "gain" a profit by the stock dropping, the fees and the
taxes from the "income" would very likely kill the company either way. If not
immediately, then later, when they have to "unfloat" those derivatives.
Am I
just reading this wrong? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 12:13 AM EST |
I'm finding it rather funny that the indemnity programs to alleviate Linux
users' risks and fears that SCO now sees as a risk (to SCO) are a direct result
of ol' Darl and Chris's public statements challenging the industry to create
such programs.
Oh, the justice of it all.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 12:27 AM EST |
I'm not a regular reader of these financial filings but I have read enough of
them over the past few years to wonder:
Has anyone seen one of
these with a Risks section that long before?
I haven't.
Heck, I think most complete filings that I've read were shorter than this Risks
section. If I were an investor and I had read that filing, I think I'd be
looking elsewhere for a place to invest.
This filing makes me think that
someone at SCO woke up in the middle of the night, sat up in bed, and
exclaimed
``Omigod! We forgot to be
honest!''
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 12:31 AM EST |
This is apalling! Who wrote this stuff? Where is the SCO spin that we have all
enjoyed so much? Come on SCO. I cant be bothered wading thru this legal stuff if
you're not going to make it laughable...come on now.. dance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No Spin? - Authored by: jdg on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 12:50 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: jmccorm on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 12:45 AM EST |
I'm finding exhibit 10.2 totally financing. It spells out more details of the
RBC/Baystar PIPE in much more detail. As in, what looks like the legal agreement
itself!<P>
<a
href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903023055/a0
3-4160_1ex10d2.htm">http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/0001
10465903023055/a03-4160_1ex10d2.htm</A><P>
So many details. What do I say here? The RBC investment appears to be on behalf
of a specific single (individual or organization) client. The bottom of the
document has [Name of Investor] in place of the actual name. Section 3i clearly
states that the investor wishes to remain unknown. Actually, there are a few
more paragraphics in that which really detail ways in which the investor is not
to be exposed. The investor can hold and sell without registration under Rule
144.<P>
When is the stock handed over? Read section 2a and 2b. It depends on how much
scruitiny they've received from the SEC. If the filing date is October 17th
2003 (which I believe it is), then the stocks are likely distributed -around-
January 15th. If not, then -around- February 15th.<P>
Ready for a GOTCHGA?<BR>
<A
href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903023055/a0
3-4160_1ex10d1.htm">http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/0001
10465903023055/a03-4160_1ex10d1.htm</A><BR>
Read section 3l (ell).<P>
<I>Each of the Company and its Subsidiaries owns or is duly licensed (and,
in such event, has the unfettered right to grant sublicenses) to use all
patents, patent applications, trademarks, trademark applications, trade names,
service marks, copyrights, copyright applications, licenses, permits,
inventions, discoveries, processes, scientific, technical, engineering and
marketing data, object and source codes, know-how (including trade secrets and
other unpatented and/or unpatentable proprietary or confidential information,
systems or procedures) and other similar rights and proprietary knowledge
(collectively, “Intangibles”) necessary for the conduct of its business as now
being conducted and as presently contemplated to be conducted in the
future.</I><P>
Darn. Work. I'll stop there.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 12:54 AM EST |
If SCO is reading this then people should not give them advice here.
So statemetns like "If i were SCO here is what I'd do / have done"
shouldnt be posted :P.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 01:16 AM EST |
I don't see anything about Red Hat vs SCO in the risks. Is that case not a risk
to SCO's business?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 02:02 AM EST |
"Our profitability in fiscal 2003 resulted primarily
from revenue we
received from our SCOsource licensing
initiative. If we do not receive
SCOsource licensing
revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the
sale of our operating system platform products and
services declines,
we will need to further reduce
operating expenses to maintain profitability
or generate
positive cash flow."
Ok... THAT
was a damning admission by SCO about
it's SCOSOurce extortion
racket licensing program.
Call me on this if I am
leaping in logic, but making the
statement "if we
do not receive
SCOSource licensing revenue" seems to say
to
me, "...we haven't had any
revenue from SCOSource since MS
and Sun buckled, because if we did, we'd
state it here,
and not give this ominous warning... "
This is, of course, in contrast to Chris Sontag's
statement 9 weeks ago in
this Forbes article:
"... some have signed up [to license
Linux from SCO],
though it won't name any. "We're ahead of plan,"
Sontag
says." - Chris Sontag, 2003-11-07
Ahead of
plan? Really??? But, SCO's SEC statements
don't reflect this statement.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 02:25 AM EST |
This is becoming patently ridiculous, even to a layperson like myself. SCrOtum
is the master of spin, that I give them, but nothing else.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 03:04 AM EST |
I think Darl and company are too busy in their own little reality to read
Groklaw. I have another theory.
SCO's disclosure went out this
week. Perhaps this was enough for SCO's lawyers to begin to believe that Darl
is nuts and SCO has no case (60 pages for IBM's compelled interrogatories... a
joke). SCO's latest announcement that they are going to a go after European
countries has not caused the usual stock boost. The lawyers may be trying to
convince Darl that he needs to start making contingency plans for the loss of
the IBM lawsuit in order to avoid fines or prison.
Disclaimer: I am
not a lawyer. This is just speculation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 03:25 AM EST |
PJ above pointed out the most dramatic changes to the S/3 between when it was
first filed in November and as it was amended today. However, there are a few
other interesting changes. I spent a considerable amount of time parsing the
files to find those differences. My comments are [in brackets.]
1) SCO says now that there are many different SCOSource initiatives. The IBM
lawsuit was part of the first and other SCOSource initiatives.
2) The new S/3 describes the derivative component of the BayStar/RBC PIPE
financing deal. In particular, if SCOX stock diminishes in value by $1, SCO
will record income of $1,000,000. This accounting will be done each quarter.
[This puts a perverse incentive on management to reduce the stock price if they
want to be profitable.]
3) They now state "Our SCOsource initiative is unlikely to produce a
stable or predictable reveenue stream for the forseeable future."
4) They note that the market price of their common stock may be negatively
affected as a result of developments in their legal action against IBM that may
be, or may be perceived to be, adverse to SCO. [And that right quick!]
5) They descibe the sending of the letters to their customers requiring them to
attest that they are in compliance with [SCO's interpretation] of their
contracts; and that they have begun notifying selected Linux end users in
writing of violations they allege under the DMCA related to SCO's copyrights
contained in Linux. [I'd *love* to see one of these DMCA letters!]
6) As noted by others above, they assert that "[a]nother recent Linux
proponent action has been to initiate several denial of services attacks on our
website"
7) They no longer claim to be negotiating with "various claimants"
in Germany over the TRO's they received.
8) In a shocking change, they list their competitors in the UNIX operating
system market as IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Sun. In the original S/3, they
included Microsoft. [Funny how a few tens of millions of dollars might change
your opinion of somebody.] They also no longer "believe that our
server products retain a competitive advantage [over NT and Linux] in a number
of targeted application areas."
9) SCO now says that the holders of the preferred shares will be entitled to
require SCO to repurchase for cash all of the shares of the preferred stock held
by them at a premium price if any of several redemption trigger events occur.
These redemption events may be triggered by events that are beyond SCO's
control. [It is unsaid what those events might be.]
10) They note that the 20% contingency fee to Boies&Co. might result in the
diminuation or elimination of proceeds available to the stockholders if SCO
sells itself.
11) Interestingly, they note that the right of consent demanded by BayStar/RBC
might limit SCO's ability to reach a settlement with IBM.
12) Finally, they describe in some [incorrect] detail the offering of the SCO
Intellectual Property License fo Linux, claiming that it was offered in August
2003. [As near as I can tell, it has actually never been truly made available.]
If anybody wants a copy of the two files as text, arranged so that a xdiff of
the files shows the minimal changes, send me mail at thad@hammerhead.com
Thad Beier
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: davcefai on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 03:33 AM EST |
Does this summarise it:
"We bet our shirts on making a go of an extortion racket but the nasty
Open Source Community are likely to win the shirts"?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 03:34 AM EST |
This is a minor point and my memory is a bit fuzy. I thought that SCO requested
the jury trial, not IBM. My impression at the time was that SCO was looking for
a friendly Utah jury. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 04:57 AM EST |
Coincidental spilling of your beverage can be a considered an unintentional
consequence of reading Groklaw today.
In a good way.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 06:24 AM EST |
It makes me worry that SCO is just going to slowly slide away to nothingness
with a couple of sharp drops as IBM moves for dismissal and the RH judge finally
rules not the big showdown on the slopes of Mount Doom we've all been looking
forward to.
I don't think Darl will go to jail myself but he'll suffer what for him will
be a far worse punishment - being irrelevant.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eggplant37 on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 07:03 AM EST |
The way I read this document in summary is thus:
"We've found so many ways to shoot ourselves in the feet that we're
running out of toes!"
These people are absolutely stark raving mad, they're nuts, they're looney if
they think they can prevail with their ridiculous claims. What struck me was
the press release I read yesterday on www.PRNews.com as linked from etrade.com,
describing SCO's filings on Monday that would identify the code that they claim
is theirs:
> SCO Responds to Court Order in Connection With Its Suit
> Against IBM
>
> January 13, 2004 15:50:09 (ET)
> LINDON, Utah, Jan 13, 2004 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via
> Comtex/ -- The SCO Group Inc. (SCOX, Trade) today
> announced that it has responded to a December 12, 2003
> court order in connection with its current legal action
> against IBM, filed in the United States District Court for
> the District of Utah. As expected, SCO yesterday answered
> certain interrogatories and produced evidence to IBM to
> support its claims. The interrogatories and evidence were
> produced on January 12, 2004 under the protective order
> previously entered in the case. In addition, SCO filed
> with the Court on January 12, 2004 the "Notice of
> Compliance with Court Order." The Notice will be available
> on Form 8-K, which will be filed later today with the
> Securities and Exchange Commission.
>
> (Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLOGO )
>
> About SCO
>
> The SCO Group (SCOX, Trade) helps millions of customers in
> more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday.
> Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network
> of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO
> Global Services provides reliable localized support and
> services to partners and customers. For more information
> on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com .
>
> SCO, and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or
> registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S.
> and other countries.
>
> SOURCE SCO Group Inc.
>
> Photo : NewsCom: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLOGO
>
> Blake Stowell, +1-801-932-5703, bstowell@sco.com, or Marc
> Modersitzki, +1-801-932-5635, both of SCO Group Inc.; or
> Dave Close, or Avi Dines, both of Schwartz Communications,
> +1-781-684-0770, sco@schwartz-pr.com, for SCO Group Inc.;
> or Brian Maddox of Financial Dynamics, +1-212-850-5600,
> scox@fd-us.com, for SCO Group Inc.
Now, where is it that they mention that those claims were incomplete? Where is
it that they say to the investment community, "We responded but not with
everything, our board members couldn't be reached during the holidays?"
If only the investment community could read what the Groklaw community has here,
the stock price would tumble in a matter of *hours*. SCO's case with IBM is so
full of holes it looks like Swiss cheese.
This set of amendments to their SEC reports is still as much a sham as
everything else they've said about this case. The Darl could learn a lot about
the phrase, "When involved in legal matters, it's best to shut up and let
your lawyers do the talking."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 07:45 AM EST |
Did they mention that Red Hat has sued them? That doesn't count as a risk?
I've read it once, and skimmed twice. I didn't see it. (That may well mean
there's something wrong with my eyes, or the brain, such as it is, behind my
eyes.)
Also, you'll all note they thoughtfully have already convicted tree-hugging
Linux-lovers of having staged the DDoS attacks. (I suppose that makes since.
Mosts denial of service attacks are politically motivated, for instance...
well, I can't think of any others, but I'm sure SCO Group is the exception.)
TFL
I don't know. I took the night off to take my daughter back to school; I get
back to Groklaw the next morning and the whole world has changed.... Clearly, I
need to break the whole sleep addiction thing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 09:40 AM EST |
the timing is undoubtable.
they are regualars here.
[phrostie waves hand]
Hi Darl!
Hi Kevin!
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 01:44 PM EST |
Some of the clearest evidence yet that SCO actively trolls this site. Maybe we
should plant other "risks" for them to blindly add to their S3, such
as:
- We do not have a business model.
- We do not have a history of hiring competent management.
- Our future plans as Microsoft's sock puppet are uncertain.
- If our attorneys show up for court drunk and with their pants off, our Linux
Licensing strategy could be severely impacted.
Fruity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 05:16 PM EST |
I expect to see Groklaw listed in the next revision... "we'd be getting
away with it, if not for this website"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 06:35 PM EST |
It has been stated here and elsewhere that the SCO license is is a violation of
the GPL.
My question about the GPL, Does the possession of a SCO "license" by
a company violate the GPL?
If SCO is encoraging GPL violations on a mass scale, are they liable for all
violations?
Can the DMCA provide relief to Linux Kernel Developers?
Ie: DMCA takedown of all SCO license webpages.
Can we also force SCO to turn over a list of any copyright violators (companies
in possesion of a SCO "IP" license)
for possible legal action by kernel developers?
PS: Way off topic: I miss my Linux ... and Florida.
---
SCO directly to jail, do not collect two hundred dollars.
BTW - I never have been mistaken for a Lawyer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 08:23 PM EST |
Is SCO reading Groklaw?
If they are, I
hope they have lots of Tums and Xanax.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kenryan on Saturday, January 17 2004 @ 09:44 PM EST |
I think your last sentence is key.
Some fraction of Linux code is clearly copyrighted by Caldera.
Can that code be described as IBM requested in 60 pages?
I don't think I could do it...
---
ken
(speaking only for myself)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
