decoration decoration
Stories

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

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

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


User Functions

Username:

Password:

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

No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The Memo is Legit
Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:44 PM EST

Well, folks, the memo is real.

I just got confirmation from Eric Raymond that SCO has acknowledged the memo as legitimate. Eweek's Mary Jo Foley and Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols have the proof:

Blake Stowell, SCO's director of communications, acknowledged that the leaked memo is real.

But, Stowell claimed that pundits had mischaracterized the memo's context. "We believe the e-mail was simply a misunderstanding of the facts by an outside consultant who was working on a specific unrelated project to the BayStar transaction and he was told at the time of his misunderstanding. Contrary to the speculation of Eric Raymond, Microsoft did not orchestrate or participate in the BayStar transaction."

Tell it to the judge, Mr. Stowell. [Update: The memo, originally posted on OSI's website at www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html was subsequently removed. It's now here on Eric Raymond's website, with his interspersed commentary. See below for the memo as text.]



Darl McBride was asked by Dan Farber just the other day about a MS connection and he denied it. Here is what he said, according to my notes:

" I hear the same conspiracy rumors that are out there that you are hearing. . . . I can tell you as the guy in the driver's seat in these deals, that there's none of that going on."

This is at about 12:51 in the video. Just thought someone might like to know who's in the driver's seat in these deals.

If you want your eyes to bug out, take a look at what Microsoft's loathsome metadata has revealed -- up until February, SCO was planning a DMCA action against the Bank of America, and they planned to ask the judge to impound all Linux software in the BofA's possession during the trial. I figured that was the DMCA plan, and that may give us insight into why EV1 may have been terrified not to take a license (they unfortunately didn't understand the GPL or the significance of Novell's copyright registration or they wouldn't have been terrified) but look at what these princes among men had in mind, and probably still do:

In seeking relief from the courts, the original version of the document also said that it sought: "impounding all Linux software products in the custody or control of Defendant through the pendency of these proceedings;" and "statutory damages under the Third Cause of Action in a sum not less than $2,500 and not more than $25,000 for each and every copy and/or distribution of Linux made by Defendant."

For all I know, this is a deliberately leaked bit of info too. Some things are just right or wrong, no negotiations, no excuses. This story is one of them.

Here is the "misunderstood" memo:

***************************************************

--- From the mailbox of chris sontag

From: Mike Anderer
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003
To: csontag at sco.com
CC: Bob Bench
Subject: Conversation Friday

Chris:

I know you were going totalk to Bob later Friday, but I figured I would outline the issues.

1) Baystar is easy as they were just a Microsoft referral and would be 2%

2) Any licensing deal would be at 5%

3) Much of the other work would go from 2% to 3% as I have engaged in direct, but this would require according to Bob either Darl or you signing off on the fact that this ane was not a referral.

4) On the patent side for IPX, where foes that fit it. I am working with the lawyers to get these moved from provisional to more complete in the next week. I think it will spawn at least 3 patents. Ed and I are the inventors on these. What do we fo here

5) The RedHat, Acrylis examiniation, there is no upside here is this billable seperatly. I bought a PC and loaded up RedHat and will take that over and work through it with the Lawfirm. What do we do here?

I realize the last negotiations are not as much fun, but Microsoft will have brough in $86 million for us including Baystar. The next deal we should be able to get from $16-20, but it will be brutial as it is for go to makerket work and some licences. I know we can do this , if everyone stays on board and still wants to do a deal. I just want to get this deal and move away from corp dev and out into the marketing andfield dollars....In this market we can get $3-5 million in incremental deals and not have to go through the gauntlet which will get tougher next week with the SR VP's.

We should line up some small acquisitions here to jump start this if we do it. We shoudl also do this ASAP. Microsoft also indicated there was a lot more money out there and they would clearly rather use Baystar"like" entities to help us get signifigantly more money if we want to grow further or do acquisitions

This Microsoft deal is the Ante to the poker game...We should get this done and go after several $2-3 Million deals from the expense side of their company.

The will help us a lot and if we execute we could exit and Unix componients we have build potentially back to Microsoft or MCS. I think they are on track and may not be able to push much more this round, but there are other ways to get money from them, their partners, investment bank referrals, etc..

Do kepp in mind that they have brough us between $82 million and $86 million if this deal is between $4million per quarter where Rich is at, or it turns into %5 million wjich is the lowest number Chris had interest in.

There will be more, lons, partnerships, etc..but we need to just get this one done. It is too high profile, it is also critical, but they are not the people to pitch. We should get what we can from them ad then work the other and larger areas of the company and groups where they have real budget and need for our help.

.Let me know your thoughts.

-Mike


  


The Memo is Legit | 667 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:54 PM EST
So from a legal standpoint, what does the memo's implications mean?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bad Link?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:56 PM EST
http://www.groklaw.net/ticle2/0,1759,1542915,00.asp

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Bad Link? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:57 PM EST
    • Bad Link? - Authored by: rand on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:03 PM EST
  • M$ IIS - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:06 PM EST
  • Bad Link? - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:56 PM EST
"proof" Link is broken.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:56 PM EST
It looks like it should go to eweek, it doesn't.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:58 PM EST
Nice memo.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Alizarin on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:59 PM EST
I was waiting all afternoon for it to show up here :-)

It looks like Microsoft is caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar.
Let's hope the press picks this up and causes a big stink (in a good way).

I smell lawsuits on the horizon... against Microsoft and SCO...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Digression from: The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:00 PM EST
Apologies if this has been covered earlier/elsewhere here.

ZDNet is reporting that MS Word revision notations in: "...A Microsoft Word document of SCO's suit against DaimlerChrysler, seen by CNET News.com, originally identified Bank of America as the defendant instead of the automaker.

Ref: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-110 4-5170073.html

umm..

Given that this is on ZDNet, I would give it some credibility.

Was the B of A too big a target?

Is Daimler-Chrysler any smaller?

Curiouser and curiouser...

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit: 404 on hyperlink
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:01 PM EST
The offered hyperlink renders a 404...

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit - Link Correction
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:01 PM EST
eWeek lnk shound point to http://www.eweek.com/article2/
0,1759,1542915,00.asp

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:02 PM EST
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1542904,00.asp

Here HERE

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:03 PM EST
The link should be.... eweek article

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: RSC on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:03 PM EST
Will any of the US Govt. Depts. taake offence ot this, and act, or will MS get
away with it?


RSC

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:03 PM EST
AND I THOUGHT IT WAS HOOKY AS IT WASN'T IN CAPITAL LETTERS. MAY GOD BLESS YOU ,
MY DEAR BROTHER.

419 scam at the ultimate level? Even those Guys must be thinking and slapping
themselves, "Why didn't WE think of this?".

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • The Memo is Legit - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:59 PM EST
The Memo is Legit
Authored by: rongage on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:08 PM EST

Let us not forget that entity created from the ashes of the last Microsoft Anti-trust suit. The Technical Committee was created for the purpose of oversight of Microsoft's business activities with regards to the DOJ's Anti-Trust complaint.

Anyhow, I just sent an email to their Complaints mailbox asking if they would have any interest in the events disclosed through Eric's latest halloween document. Of course, I included links to Eric's document and to the eweek article showing SCO confirming the article as legit.

Anyhow, I trust my fellow Groklawers will find the above links useful.

---
Ron Gage - Linux Consultant
LPI1, MCP, A+, NET+
Pontiac, Michigan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Legal Implications
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:12 PM EST
It seems to me this would be an anti-trust violation. Microsoft has a monopoly
in pc-compatible os's, and Linux is rising competition. To secretly fund
lawsuits againt Linux just has to be monopoly abuse.

Not that our current president's doj would do anything about it. Oh, but look
how active the EU has been against MS lately. Maybe there would be hope for
some real action from them.

I wonder what would be a legal and appropriate punishment or sanction?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:14 PM EST
Ok, its legit, thats great. But, it leaves me wondering why they admitted to its
being real.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More M$ Fun and BofA?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:17 PM EST
Perhaps one of you more astute viewers can give this story the proper billing
it deserves. ZDNet posts an article stating that an often overlooked MS Word
function reveals more behind-the-scenes pranks of our favorite company:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5170073.html

Meta data in a SCO word doc shows they were planning (at least on electronic
paper) to name Bank of America as a possible lawsuit target.

If you play chicken with a train, are you really brave or just plain nuts?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anderer has a front row seat....
Authored by: sam on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:22 PM EST
Mike Anderer just got himself a free front row seat to a deposition where he
also will be center stage!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Outside Consultant?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:32 PM EST
I reread the memo. It does not sound like it was written by an outsider
who did not know what was going on. It sounds like it was written by
someone so intimately involved that he was talking directly to Microsoft
and getting commissions for closing some of the deals.

Stowell's remark that Anderer was "an outside consultant who was
working on a specific unrelated project to the BayStar transaction" might
be true only in the narrow sense that Microsoft arranged so many of the
details of that particular deal that Anderer played only a small role.

Looks like the technical media will be taking this up in a big way. I'm
doing my best to interest the regular press. Others might want to do the
same.

I just got this from a CNET reporter:

Yep, our story is up too:

http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5170181.html

Here's another juicy tidbit:

http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5170073.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doo dah, doo dah
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:35 PM EST
Judge Kottar-Kelly do anything? Any judge do anything?

I think SCO is immune to any judicial hazards in our courts. Outide the U.S.,
this might be a problem. But not here. Especially in an election year when
candidates will need Microsoft's money. And will Kottar-Kelly want to do
anything to jeopardize her chances for a promotion?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:36 PM EST
I'm sorry PJ - I just still don't believe the memo is real. While I have no
doubt that this group is slimy, sleezy and dirty, and (insert favourite
adjective here), they are nonetheless eloquent. Knowing how much they distort
the truth, why would they 'fess up now? It seems just a little hard to
believe.

Which leads me to the question: If SCO admits to this, does this mean that they
feel that they can profit from this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:38 PM EST
OKee thats it. I'm steaming. How can these people live with them selfes ? They
would try to sue the inventor of worldpeace if they were paid to do it. Makes me
SICK.
Gives me great motivation to migrate that STUPID M$ DB bridge system to Linux at
work tomorrow. ( last bludy M$ server in house ).

But anyway, can we now conclude that if this get ANY bigger the SCO fudfund has
a bottom ?

Damb, It's this stuff that gets to me.

retep vosnul

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why Admit It?
Authored by: snorpus on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:38 PM EST
For just about the first time I can recall, someone at SCO is doing the right thing.

Once upon a time in America, about 32 years ago, there was a President whose first (and second and third) thoughts were to "cover it up". The truth will out eventually; better to 'fess up now while there's still a chance to spin the interpretation.

---
73/88 de KQ3T

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:40 PM EST
ITIK why they admit it.

This will forse RB of Canada to react like coward and do transfer imidetly. So
on 12$ that is much less dammage to SCO than on 5$ two months from now.

So there's no more veto on sending 20% to Boies et co.

I know I'm missin big on this but it's so much fun

[ Reply to This | # ]

What are the ramifications of this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:42 PM EST
As I read this memo that links SCO and Microsoft, I wonder if anything will come
of it. Words like RICO, conspiracy, fraud, and securities violations come to
mind.

Will this latest revelation of SCO dishonesty have a direct impact on the IBM
case? Does anybody think IBM may start sending MSFT subpoenas?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Liability
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:47 PM EST
So the important question seems to be to what degree this would make Microsoft
vulnerable to the various counter suits? I suspect they've been very careful
about legally distancing themselves from the suits, but it seems there is a
small chance that they could now end up providing nice deep pockets if TSG were
to lose. Anyone know to what degree this is correct? Beyond that I don't see
what effect it would have on the SCO/IBM case.

Michael

[ Reply to This | # ]

Notes re: The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:53 PM EST
Michael Anderer is apparently a member of the Board of the University of South Carolina Research Foundation as shown by Google here, and may be involved with software licensing and/or IP issues, hard to tell...

Mr. Michael Anderer (1 st 2004)
Chairman/CEO
Silicon StemCell
4567 South Matthews Way
Salt Lake City, UT 84124

His email address leads to www.S2.com which is "Accelerating Growth in Technology Companies", but their web site is nothing more than a default.htm on a IIS server..

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: sef on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:54 PM EST

a couple of comments; i apologise in advance for the rambling, as the past couple of days have left me quite depressed about everything.

first: as to kottar-kelly, i would not expect anything to be done. she has approved what is not even a slap on the wrist, and nothing has indicated that she is willing to do anything substantive about microsoft. i have my doubts that she would have not dismissed the case had the appellate court not upheld the findings of facts.

second: as to ev1servers, as well as computer associates and all the others i'm sure are lining up: it is most likely that they capitulated, and paid sco some blood money, because any time in court would have cost more than sco was demanding. the value at this point is in letting sco say, "see, lots of those evil linux users are signing up," which, of course, gets their stock price up, which is the whole purpose.

third: i think sco will withhold from suing any banks for the immediate future. they may threaten -- and, if this is a deliberate leak, it's going to do a good job of making some threats for them -- but only lightly. in order to keep the stock price up, sco needs buyers, and that means investors. and that means they can't piss off too many banks or investment firms.

i am left aghast at the past two days' actions. shocked and dismayed that sco has duped a judge into thinking they are acting in good faith; angry in addition to that, that sco sued autozone and DC; that ev1servers paid them money. that computer associates paid them money. that people believe these liars who are doing nothing but abusing the court system.

until yesterday, i could take comfort in the fact that sco had been dealt largely losses. now, i can no longer do that: they were given what they wanted, without having to live up to the previous order, and were given more time to give ibm what ibm wanted. that is a win for sco, in court, where they should have had nothing.

i am still trying to take comfort from the fact that both ibm and novell appear to have some really good lawyers, and undoubtedly ibm expected that result.

SCO DELENDA EST!

[ Reply to This | # ]

I LOVE SCO!!!!
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:00 PM EST
They're doing more to hurt Microsoft and to show the benefits of open source
than any open source company or advocate.

By the time this is over MS could be facing stiffer anti-trust penalties while
Linux is shown to be quite legally sound and that you don't have to worry about
being tainted by using open source, but you get your code tainted and are
subject to lawsuits by your own suppliers if you use proprietary software.

I guess Boies is still doing his best to take on Microsoft even if it costs him
his reputation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

outside consultant
Authored by: m_si_M on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:00 PM EST
Have a look at SCO's SEC-filing from 28th of January, Exhibit 10.15. Mike
Anderer signed for a company called S2 Strategic Consulting, LLC as independent
contractor.
Maybe a lawyer should have a look at the exhibit, because I'm not certain, if
the clauses of strict separation of work are a usual thing or something else.
Does anybody have information about S2 Strategic Consulting, LLC?

---
C.S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • outside consultant - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:24 PM EST
    • s2.com - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:27 PM EST
      • s2.com - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:45 PM EST
      • s2.com - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:55 PM EST
      • s2.com - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:01 AM EST
The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:06 PM EST
Somehow it looks like SCO is going after companies who used SCO software before
and did not change to windows but to aix, linux, novell. I know for shure that
Chrysler dealer system was based on Unixware with thousands of licenses. It
would be nice to know if Chrysler is/is planning to pull out from unixware.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • The Memo is Legit - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:03 PM EST
  • The Memo is Legit - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:07 PM EST
Hard to credit Stowell
Authored by: Adam on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:07 PM EST
I've read it several times, trying to construe it as being about something else
or being a misunderstanding, but I just can't do it. For one thing, the numbers
just don't add up. $50m Baystar + $11m Microsoft do not make $86m. Secondly, it
looks like SCO is expecting to receive regular payments of $4-5m a quarter. If
we speculate for a moment that those payments make up the rest of the $86m, then
they're expecting to receive them for 5 quarters.

Ok, so let's be charitable. Let's suppose SCO is being paid, secretly, to do
some Unix related software development by Microsoft. That could be one
interpretation of the email. Then the crucial questions are what, why, and how?
What could Microsoft need developing? Why would they hire SCO to do it? And how
is SCO going to do $25m worth of development with only 160 technical staff?

Wow, my tinfoil hat is vibrating. The answer is obvious: Microsoft Linux. I
think I'm trolling my own brain.

I feel like we're on the cusp of something here. A week from now, this could all
have blown over. Or SCO could be in receivership. Or they could be taking
Microsoft down with them. It's a very exciting time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could IBM, Sun, Novell profit from unfavorable rulings as well?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:09 PM EST
Look at the danger of this. Microsoft paid over $100
million to turn one of the larger LInux distributers
(Caldera) into a lawsuit machine.

IBM paid $50 million+ to get a piece of SuSE through
Novell.

Sun created its own distribution.

Oracle could get pressured into gobbling up RedHat
sometime in the near future, in order to keep up with IBM.

Within 2 years, 80-90% of the Linux market could be
gobbled up or destroyed by the multi-Billion dollar Wall
Street Corporations. Then, with a nice court order in the
case between IBM/Novell and Microsoft/SCO which requires
certain fees and so forth (such as requiring the
distributor to indemnify their distribution against stolen
code), you could drive up the cost of ALL Linux
distributions instantly to a point where the Kernel is a
profitable piece of software for IBM/Novell, Sun and
Oracle.

Microsoft jumps into the fray, puts out their own OS X or
MicroLinux version.

5-6 years from now we may all be legally crippled from
sharing versions of Linux around, and we may be trying to
get versions of the Kernel and drivers for the HURD or
FreeBeOS or FreeBSD running.

Ultimately, returning the Kernel to the marketplace could
be the end goal for all the major players involved. You
have to ask, is this SCO vs. the OpenSource World, or is
it really just Microsoft/SCO vs. IBM/Novell in a game
whose true end goal is to get a court order to require
payment for the Linux Kernel? Should any of us really be
cheerleaders for IBM in this struggle?

Ever wonder why in reading through Groklaw, IBM seems
quite pleased to be in the middle of a long court dispute?
It may be easier to drive certain required costs into the
Kernel if they are the result of a judges order in a
Federal Court dispute. Required costs, such as "indemnity
against stolen source code". One line of copied code out
of millions could lead to such a court ruling.

You think that Slackware and Debian could afford to
indemnify their distributions against possible lines of
stolen source code? They would probably go out of
business, or be forced to find a rich suitor. Mandrake and
Gentoo as well. IBM, Sun, Oracle and Microsoft could
afford to put out indemnified versions of Linux, and pass
on the costs (plus a little something-something) to the
end user.

Just got me thinking. Things are not always what they
seem.

[ Reply to This | # ]

About EV1
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:10 PM EST
I'm sure I'm not the first to point this out but ev1 is denying that it was a 7-figure deal. If this is true then its one of the most cut-and-dried examples of SCO misleading potential investors that we've seen to date.

This needs some research from the groklaw community: where are all the places that SCO claimed it was a 7-figure deal and what exact wording did they use?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:10 PM EST
" Oh, where have you been, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, where have you been, my darling young one?
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains,
I've walked and I've crawled on six crooked highways,
I've stepped in the middle of seven sad forests,
I've been out in front of a dozen dead oceans,
I've been ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, and it's a
hard,
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall"

...................B.D.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:13 PM EST
First Halloween X, then the BoA metadata found in the DC
document. What a decidedly delicious day!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting Link
Authored by: AdamBaker on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:17 PM EST
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/040304/feature_1.html

Rob Enderle seems to have changed his view and McBride's final comment looks
like an admission that the EV1 license is just a protection racket.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patent applications for Inventor Mike Anderer of Salt Lake City, UT
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:17 PM EST
Same guy?

Method for managing printed medium activated revenue sharing domain name system
schemas
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&a
mp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=OR&am
p;d=PG01&s1=anderer.IN.&s2=sontag.IN.&OS=IN/anderer+OR+IN/sontag&
;RS=IN/anderer+OR+IN/sontag

Printed medium activated interactive communication of multimedia information,
including advertising
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&a
mp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=OR&am
p;d=PG01&s1=anderer.IN.&s2=sontag.IN.&OS=IN/anderer+OR+IN/sontag&
;RS=IN/anderer+OR+IN/sontag

Method for managing printed medium activated revenue sharing domain name system
schemas
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&a
mp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=OR&am
p;d=PG01&s1=anderer.IN.&s2=sontag.IN.&OS=IN/anderer+OR+IN/sontag&
;RS=IN/anderer+OR+IN/sontag

Printed medium activated interactive communication
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&a
mp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=10&f=G&l=50&co1=OR&a
mp;d=PG01&s1=anderer.IN.&s2=sontag.IN.&OS=IN/anderer+OR+IN/sontag&am
p;RS=IN/anderer+OR+IN/sontag

Printed medium activated interactive communication
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&a
mp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=11&f=G&l=50&co1=OR&a
mp;d=PG01&s1=anderer.IN.&s2=sontag.IN.&OS=IN/anderer+OR+IN/sontag&am
p;RS=IN/anderer+OR+IN/sontag

Printed medium activated interactive communication
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&a
mp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=12&f=G&l=50&co1=OR&a
mp;d=PG01&s1=anderer.IN.&s2=sontag.IN.&OS=IN/anderer+OR+IN/sontag&am
p;RS=IN/anderer+OR+IN/sontag

(Yes, the last three have the same title).

I am registered as OldPro, but I'm at work - It's not really my area of
expertise, but some of these seem awful broad (and not especailly new, either).
It would also seem worthwhile to see what some of Anderer's other fellow
"inventors" are trying to patent, but i don't have any time right now.


Also, if this is really the Mike Anderer that is associating with the McBride
brothers, it may be worth researching to see if the patent inside is really what
the summary describes. Seems to me I've heard of that as well where a patent
slides by with a fairly innocuous summary but what's inside is entirely
different.

Does anyone know how the patent process works? Is there any opportunity for
those outside of the patent office to get their two cents worth in if a patent
seems overly broad or covers things that are not ingenious or where there does
seem to be prior art? Or do you have to wait until the patent is granted and
then spend ten's of thousands of dollars to invalidate the patent later.

PJ, if you're still keeping a list of potential projects, this software patent
field seems like a real minefield. How about a blog for people interested in
searching throught patent apps to expose some of these before Open Software gets
trapped by some idiotic patent that the patent office didn't catch (big shock
there!).

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: hardcode57 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST
Many more moons ago than I care to contemplate I took a very basic law course. I
seem to remember a concept called champerty (perhaps spelled without the r?)
about how a lawsuit backed by a third party not party to the dispute could hit
the rocks. Have I remembered this right?
Does it apply in US/Utah law?
Does it have a bearing here?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: DFJA on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST
Could Red Hat, IBM or Novell (or the increasing list of SCO's targets) subpoena
the consultant who wrote this, and more importantly would it be worth their
while doing so?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • The Memo is Legit - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:07 PM EST
The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:21 PM EST
ESR misinterpreted the memo in a couple fairly important ways. He double counts
the new $16 to $20 million deal: first he treats it as part of the "$82 to
$86 million" total, which he thinks has already been paid to SCO, then he
adds it in again, to get a projected total of $98 to $106 million.

We already know where all of SCO's license revenue came from last year, and the
total from Microsoft was ~$16 million. The leaked memo suggests only that
Baystar was a "Microsoft referral" and then attributes the $50 million
to Microsoft, but I think Stowell is probably correct when he said that
Microsoft did not actually fund that deal. I think they probably just pointed
Baystar in SCO's direction.

I think the key thing about this newly revealed deal is that it DID NOT HAPPEN.
SCO was negotiating this in October last year, and Chris Sontag is claimed to
have been not interested in a deal for less than $5 million per quarter.
Coincidentally that is just about what it would take to keep SCO in the black,
and this is the time frame when SCO would have been eager to make a deal to
rescue their just-reported quarter.

Also I think it is interesting that the PIPE holders renegotiated the conversion
feature on the preferred shares in the months following this email. From this
email, if we take it at face value, a big deal was in the works that could have
stabilized SCO's financials for the next four quarters. The deal has not
materialized. Now the PIPE holders, who were "referred" to SCO by
Microsoft, have renegotiated their terms, giving up much of their upside
potential in exchange for downside protection. I think this is no coincidence,
and the pipe holders picked up which way the wind was blowing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The only way it makes sense
Authored by: superluser on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:23 PM EST
Here's the only way that this leak and subequent confirmation makes sense to my
eyes.

1.) SCO asks MS for some capital to fund their lawsuit.
2.) MS sees this as a good tactic for tying up Linux until Longhorn comes out,
and so it agrees, provided that SCO give MS first dibs on UNIX IP if SCO folds.
3.) SCO's case is so poor that MS sees that the delay won't be enough to gain
the ground that they expected.
4.) MS pulls the rug out from under SCO hoping to scoop up UNIX IP for their
UNIX Services for Windows package.
5.) Someone at SCO gets pissed, and sends the memo, hoping to get antitrust
action to block the IP transfer when SCO does go down.
6.) Blake Stowell verifies the memo (either because he knew it was going to be
leaked or the execs decided to verify it post hoc). He can't verify the meaning
of the memo, because that would mean jail time, but the existence to this memo
would probably mean that the IP transfer wouldn't take place (or would be
delayed long enough to be useless to Microsoft).
7.) Microsoft cuts market analysts loose, and lets them do whatever analyses
they really want to do.

Or else SCO undertook this entire case with the intention of throwing it. And
business school graduates really do contrive to implode their company, I'll eat
my hat. And trust me, my black bowler doesn't look that tasty.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder what that EU commission is going to think
Authored by: Jude on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:27 PM EST
I hear that the EU is on the verge of a decision WRT to Microsoft's monopoly
tactics in Europe. It's hard to imagine news like this breaking at any worse
time for MS. I wonder if it will have any effect on the decision?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Guessing games
Authored by: AdamBaker on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:29 PM EST
Anyone fancy making some suggestions as to what motions the defendants in the
new suits are going to file soon? Here are some suggestions to start you off.

Autozone will file to say that the complaint fails to state a valid claim
because it doesn't identify with the required specifity what is infringing
material

Autozone will file to say that they never copied Linux because they bought a
copy of RHEL for each server so whether it infringes is irrelevant to them.

Autozone will file to say that SCO don't have standing as they can't prove their
ownership of Unix copyrights citing the Novell case.

DaimlerChrysler will file to say that the license passed to DaimlerChryslerAG
during the merger, not DaimlerChrysler Corp so please refile in Germany.

DaimlerChrysler will file to say that as the license was not transferable it
died at the merger because Chrysler Motors ceased to exist. (Some readers have
failed to notice that the license is definitely an old AT&T one so most
likely they don't need it any more.)

DaimlerChrysler will file to say that as Novell waived their requirement to
answer this letter as they are entitled to do they had no obligation to answer.
Links
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/12_23_03_n-sco.pdf and
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/1_7_04_sco-n.pdf

DaimlerChrysler will file for dismissal for failure to state a claim as the
letter they didn't answer doesn't match the audit rights

DaimlerChrysler will file to claim that 30 days including Xmas is not a
reasonable period for them to perform an audit on such ancient technology that
may still be in use somewhere within a huge company.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Guessing games - Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:51 PM EST
  • A couple more - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:09 PM EST
  • More - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:15 PM EST
  • Another one - Authored by: Lev on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:34 PM EST
Hype, Hype, Hype!
Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:45 PM EST
This is excellent. Hype and bad press headed SCO's way. Even the thought of
"impounding servers" will be damaging. We'd really like to know what
the bank knows, like what kind of pressure was put on them.

Now while this bad press & hype is discusting (in a logical I'll prove you
wrong way - the Groklaw way) if sustained it does do one thing. It attacts
investigations.

And it comes at a good time too, as it seemed as it was going to appear
"ok" to buy a SCO license, with others going public.

Another thing too, even if the memo is an intentional leak, for whatever reason,
there most likely won't be any money heading SCO's way from MS (even via the
back channels).

I'm hoping for under $10 close tomarrow.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • What If? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 07:07 PM EST
More On Anderer
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:47 PM EST
The S2.com domain info shows this:
S2 Partners, LLC
4567 Mathews Way
Salt Lake City, UT 84124-4777
The admin contact is given as Daniel Ray.

Now if you look up the property records it shows that it's a single-family
residential home with an assessed value of just under $2M.

From the old S2 website:
"Mr. Anderer currently serves as a director for Entirenet, Synergy
Networks, Medicity, NetGen, and Conita Technologies. He previously served as
Chairman of the Board and CEO of USConnect, an international consortium of
systems integration firms."
http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=s2+and+anderer&ei=UTF-8&n=100&
fl=0&u=s2.com/html/b_mike.htm&w=s2+and+anderer&d=5011D2E9D9&c=48
2&yc=53237&icp=1

Other names that come up on old pages of S2 are Joel Weinbach, Tim Hudson and
Erik Felsted.

Joel Weinbach:
http://www.thecioacademy.com/newcioacademy/Bios/joel_weinbach.htm

Tim Hudson:
http://www.smartben.com/sbmk/SBMK.doc

Erik Felsted:
"Immediately prior to joining S2, Mr. Felsted was a senior manager at Ernst
& Young. During his tenure at Ernst & Young, Mr. Felsted advised
hundreds of companies on capital structure planning, stock option planning,
transaction planning, and other tax issues facing high-growth ventures."
http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=%22Erik+Felsted%22&u=s2.com/html/b_eri
k.htm&w=%22erik+felsted%22&d=1D4590A637&c=482&yc=51952&icp=1

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • More On Anderer - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:48 PM EST
  • Medicity - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:24 PM EST
Suddenly it all makes wonderful sense!
Authored by: hardcode57 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:56 PM EST
We've all wondered what the heck SCO think they are trying to achieve. We've
wondered if this was a pump-and-dump. Here's a scenario so bizarre I suspect it
may be true, or at least funny.

A lawyer called Boise has an idea. He goes to DM, CEO of a soon to be bankrupt
software company with a scheme for fleecing Microsoft. MS wants to destroy the
open source movement, and will pay to achieve this.In fact the MS money goes on
lawyers fees for frivolous cases, which DM participates in through his brother
Kevin, an otherwise undistinguished small-town lawyer who otherwise has no
business near big commercial cases. It doesn't matter how silly the cases are,
so long as they cost money.

At the end of the day, the lawyers and their relatives get rich, Microsoft gets
a little poorer, and the defendants don't get their costs reimbursed because
the plaintiff, SCO has gone under, where it was going anyway.

Usually I'd say this was tinfoil hat stuff, but after today I realise that in
this case only though extreme paranoia can one gain sight of the truth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anyone know where the word document was obtained from?
Authored by: nzkoz on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:58 PM EST
Is it available for download somewhere? Where did CNET get the metadatafilled
version?

---
Cheers
Koz

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is This The Same Anderer?
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:00 PM EST
Here's an old message of a Michael Anderer asking for help with a GNU-related
issue:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22michael+anderer%22&hl=en&lr=&ie
=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7f4sb8%24h70%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com&rnum=4&am
p;filter=0

[ Reply to This | # ]

WRITE PRESIDENT BUSH
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:03 PM EST
I can add nothing to this except HEAR HEAR!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could someone please tell me
Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:04 PM EST
just what part of the antitrust settlement Microsoft is supposed to have violated?

If not the antitrust settlement, which laws? I'm not clear on how investing in another company, however slimy, constitutes a violation of the law.

Most of us seem to be pretty comfortable with the idea that firms, pension plans, etc. invest preferentially in companies that are socially responsible. Well, what MS has done here is invest in a company that is doing what Microsoft sees as Good Work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

DiDio comes out for Linux, sorta
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:05 PM EST
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=SCO_Ordered_To_Reveal_Infringi
ng_Code&story_id=23301

The infringing code will probably remain behind closed doors. "The Linux
and the open source communities have been frustrated saying that SCO had not
shown its code," said Laura DiDio, Yankee Group analyst. "But it's
probably going to be awhile before we see any of it," she told NewsFactor.


DiDio says the ruling is a relief, on one hand, because it seems the case is
moving along. But, overall, she sees it having little effect on the Linux wave.
"There would have to be a major cataclysmic event for anything to derail
Linux's momentum at this point," she noted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: sbungay on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:06 PM EST
After looking at the info on ZD Net and comparing it to what I read here about
the suit against DC, I find it interesting how the scope of the suit changed
when BA was removed as the target and DC wae scribbled in. The BA suit seems to
be very bold in it's claims against Linus and takes a strong bias to using the
DMCA to impound LINUX products etc. that the plaintif is using.
OTOH the DC suit looks like a lot of noise over one paragraph regarding what
apprars to be an audit request to ensure compliance with the DC licence in
general. Or am I missing something?
Perhaps they did some research on Groklaw and viewed some of those wonderful
documents regarding where the header files came from.

---
Programmer: A red eyed mumbling mamal that converses with inanimate objects.

IANAL IAAP

[ Reply to This | # ]

Deliberate Leak
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:06 PM EST
It is my belief that the memo was deliberately leaked to ESR.

SCO is trying to promote fear here methinks. So the next time they go talk to
somebody about licensing their precious IP, that person will have "Oh no,
the agents of the evil empire are at my door" floating in their heads.
It's easy to dismiss a lawsuit from SCO, who is already fighting four lawsuits.
(Or was it five? So sad when one loses count.)

It's not so easy to dismiss Microsoft as a legal threat. So, it is to SCO's
advantage for everyone to think that it's REALLY Microsoft who are doing this,
and that you're not just up against an underfunded company whose legal resources
have been stretched to the breaking point.

I am very curious to see what Microsoft has to say about all this, if they
respond at all.

Also, wouldn't a financial statement from Microsoft somewhere need to contain
such deals?

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ -- Minor corrections
Authored by: Xenographic on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:08 PM EST
Couldn't find where you put the errata thread, so I'm posting this here:

1) The eWeek link is broken. It's the second link, and is on the first line of
the article proper (at least in my browser, at this resolution...) It points to
Groklaw instead of eWeek, probably because you accidentally got only half the
URL.

2) On one of the last sentences at the bottom, you say something to the effect
of "let me know what you all think." There's an extra period at the
beginning of this sentence for some reason (probably from your edits to a
previous draft of the story).

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Night Flyer on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:08 PM EST
When I told my son about the memo, he said "Tell me something new. I knew
months ago M$ was supporting M$." We argued for a while about $86 Million
is a lot. He said, "Not to Microsoft".

(He's a university student immersed in exams, so he has only followed this issue
on and off.)

I can tell by his response, he is wondering why I am so angry about this, and
there is such a flury of activity around it.

---------------------------------


It seems to me that SCO used extortion to get EV1 to pay the License fee. When
a judgement comes out showing that Linux does not contain SysV code (nor SCO
IP), wouldn't this null and void the terms of the contract and allow EV1 to sue
SCO? (Ah well I guess SCO would be gone by then.)

I wonder who will buy the UNIX License from the SCO ashes?

---------------------------------

My Clan Motto: Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers
(I wish it worked a bit faster)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why the flies were buzzing in Lindon...
Authored by: digger53 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:17 PM EST
Well, well. It all adds up. Why why were the flies
buzzing around that stinking piece of cheese in Lindon?
They were obeying their masters ... in Redmond.

Someone else's signature quotes Aristotle: "The slightest
deviation from the truth will be multiplied later." The
lights are on, the truth is clear, nevertheless, the
cockroaches scurry, smile and pretend to be innocent
guard-dogs. No surprise there: decievers decieve, it is
their nature.

I've gotta finish ridding this box of Windows. Redmond is
loathsome-and dangerous. It seems like a moral issue.

---
"Who can rob us of out free will? No such man exists." Epictetus

[ Reply to This | # ]

IPX patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:28 PM EST
Thinking about the line concerning "IPX" - I can't see any way that
this refers to the Novell networking protocol of the same name. As has been
noted, it's legacy. Nobody's doing anything clever or interesting with it now,
and a patent filed in 2004 will have to work exceptionally hard to apply to
something so moribund.

So, if I had to bet I'd say that this applies to some internal project in a
totally different sphere. IPX could easily mean 'Intellectual Property eXtended'
which fits entirely with what our actors do, and is also a nice pun of the sort
that would appeal to old Utah software hounds. (IPX stands for Internet Protocol
eXtended, which always was ironic).

Ah, what did Mark Twain say about science? One gets such wholesale returns of
conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. Or was that SCOence?

R

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not Judge Kollar-Kotelly
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:28 PM EST
I don't think that Kollar-Kotelly can handle this. That is because she only
deals with matters that are directly related to the settlement of the Microsoft
anti-trust trial. Instead the DOJ would have to start something new.

This might be possible. I am sure IBM has a lot of pull in the government. Also,
in the Microsoft anti-trust trial the government was hamstrung because a lot of
companies like Dell wouldn't testify against MS because they were afraid it
would retaliate against them. But IBM isn't afraid of anyone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM sues Microsoft?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:31 PM EST
IBM suing Microsoft for interference with its business. That would be so sweet.
Microsoft has what, 50 billion in the bank? Yeah, that sounds like about the
right amount to go for.

[ Reply to This | # ]

WRITE PRESIDENT BUSH
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:36 PM EST
I don't have to write him. I'm no voting for him, no way not ever.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:36 PM EST
The memo says that Microsoft referred the investors. I guess it was trying to
hide its hand. However, it seems to me that could work against it in court. The
more steps in the process, the more documents that might be found and the more
people who might testify.

MS's executives would lie about the whole thing, but the investor firm would be
in a completely different position. It would be really easy to pressure it to
turn state's (or IBM's) witness. Just offer it a deal where it would get off
the hook for telling the whole truth. And I bet Anders is going to sing like a
canary.

Oh, this is going to be so much fun. And Groklaw will cover it every step of
the way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • The Memo is Legit - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:30 PM EST
RBC 's $30 million
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:37 PM EST
Baystar has denied the money came from Microsoft, but
$30 million of the $50 million came from RBC. Does
Baystar actually know where RBC's money came from? How
do they know that Microsoft was not involved in that portion
of the investment? RBC has been very tight-lipped about the source of the $30
million. I don't think they have ever explicitly denied Microsoft's
involvement.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Broken Link and Name Fixed
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:45 PM EST
I am sorry, everyone, that the link was broken and the names. I had to run on
an errand for my mother, and I had time to throw this up and now that I'm
back, it's distressing to see that Geeklog ate the link. It does that sometimes

if you preview.

If any of you brainiacs know how to fix that , it would be wonderful.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS Desperate?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:46 PM EST
Secretly funding the SCO lawsuit would be a dangerous thing for MS to do,
because of all the trouble it could get into.

If this memo is right, then it says to me that MS is in such a panic over Linux
that it would take great risks to fight it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who is kidding who. . .?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:49 PM EST
So what the memo is legit. M$ is funneling money via third parties to SCOG.

Is anything going to happen or be done to either M$ or SCOG? No.

M$ has the coin ($40+ billion of them in the bank) to buy what they desire.
Politicians, judges ... countries. They are safe and they know it.

SCOG? Who cares. They are going under and *they* know it.

krp

[ Reply to This | # ]

WRITE PRESIDENT BUSH
Authored by: jasonstiletto on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:56 PM EST
This is a matter for the judicial system. What can politics do this late in
the game? File a brief outlining their side of a thing? talk to the public?
Nudge the FTC? In any event, changing laws now won't effect this court case,
and if you want to change laws in the future, don't just stop with those who are
sitting in power, but also with the canidates. By his voting record, the only
advantage that Kerry would bring to this is that he might Tax sco more so
they'll go under faster. Politics aren't going to effect this case much at all.
It will effect cases like it in the future. That will be a long, slow process,
which will outlast a single political cycle. It's off topic to the problem at
hand, which is this case, these facts, this time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Longhorn --> Linux in 2006!!!
Authored by: Greg on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:57 PM EST

The strategy is to Slow Linux development
so that Longhorn can come out to save the day.

This forum has done great things to expose the
truth regarding the SCO intentions.

In the end it is about money.

And if Longhorn is made to look bad and begins to
become the standard like MS Windows.

The men and women at Microsoft will stand to loose
potentially more than half their wealth.

Please keep in mind that if you work for
Microsoft all or almost all of your wealth
is captured within your stock options.

I spoke with a woman that was worth $9 million
from working with MS. I asked if she had
deversified her investments. I was shocked to
hear that it would be a slap in the face of
all the people working at MS.

Yet her house, car etc. are all leveraged
off of her MS stock... Get it?

Linx is a direct threat to the Bloated Cow called
Longhorn in 2006. This is a strategy to stop
the train or slow it down enough so that
Longhorn can consume Linux.

Which is why SCO did an exclusive license
to MS for including it within Longhorn.

There is way to much at stake to allow
Linux to survive.

The core asset for MS is the OS.
It must be defended to the death.

Yes?

Greg

[ Reply to This | # ]

Aaaahh, Sweet Irony...
Authored by: preadapted on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:03 PM EST
"If you want your eyes to bug out, take a look at what Microsoft's
loathsome metadata has revealed"

Hoist on your own petard, MS. Couldn't have happened to a more swell bunch o'
fellas... Monkey dance around this one Steve!!!

Gary

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Memo is Legit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:04 PM EST
Last night I watched Charlie Rose interview Bill Gates.
Bill is pretty smart, and he has one long term goal, world
domination, Microsoft software on everything we own. A
shorter term goal, Longhorn. Bill admitted on the show that
Longhorn was going to take 2 or 3 years, maybe more, in the
mean time, they would release minor bug and security
updates to the current code.

<tinfoil hat>
Imagine Bill and Steve sitting around drinking a beer, and
Steve saying to Bill, "hey bill, that longhorn looks cool,
but we are loosing market share, and in 2-3 years, well
there might not be enough market left to convince anyone
those features are worth what it cost us".

Bill being the scheming guy he is says, "I got a plan,
how about we get all them Penguins all wrapped up in some
hokey thing. REmember a couple years ago when that guy
trademarked "Linux" the whole community about quit writing
code so they could beat up that guy?"

Steve, "maybe, but so, you know someone who could trademark
linux again?"

Bill, "No, I got a buddy at SCO who says they might have
legal claim to all Unix, patents and stuff. They are pissed
at IBM too, and they only need a couple million to make it
happen."

Steve, "Ain't IBM into Linux too? that'd be great, those
penguins wouldn't know what hit 'em"

Bill, "Right, they'd be so busy trying to get to Salt Lake
nothing would get done on Linux. Longhorn could be five
years out, and people would still be impressed with it's
improvements."

Steve, "What happens to SCO if this doesn't work"

Bill, "Who cares, we'll make it 10 times what they ask
for, and tell 'em they can do whatever they want with the
money. Remeber this will be all legal and stuff, it'll be
years before it gets all unsnarled, tell 'em the need to
use that jerk Boies, that'll make the biggest mess of it
all".

Steve, "Yea, Boies, he almost got us, 'eh?".

Bill, "Don't remind me, hey did you make that contribution
to ..."
</tinfoil hat>


Yup, this was all a distraction, we need to back to writing
all the best applications and tools available on the planet
and show microsoft they wasted their money.

Get back to work!

tommy

[ Reply to This | # ]

Write Eliot Spitzer instead
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:11 PM EST
Write to New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer instead. He has a better
track record of fighting corporate crime than anyone in the White House.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Or the Mass. AG - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:21 PM EST
Just a Minute My Friends! This is BAD BAD BAD
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:13 PM EST
You're right, and my black-helicopter-radar seems to have a lot of green dots.
Seriously.

People here are convinced that these leaks are, indeed, leaks. But they are
coming from people involved in a conspiracy -- a conspiracy to monetize Linux to
their own advantage. SCO is doing it, and in a way, Microsoft is doing it too.

What amazes me is the incredibly poor grammar and spelling in the e-mail. It is
almost like it was a rough draft, not a finished copy ready for sending to
important executives. A man who is a consultant knows that quite often, your
skills as a writer make an impression on those that do not know you. I simply
cannot believe that a professional consultant would have SENT that e-mail out to
his intended audience.

But I quibble. The metadata issue is also a ruse -- it is a THIRD lawsuit
without a lawsuit. A lawsuit that SCO could not win, but the threat of one sure
as heck will shake the boards, and executive suites of a major company using
Linux. Imagine the stockholders meeting: "Why, Mr. CEO did you not
license this software and thus expose the firm to a charge-off?" Of
course, that would never happen, because SCO would not win. But the IDEA that
it COULD is enough to send CA and others scurrying to their checkbooks. And
voila! the reason that this metadata was "leaked."

And you who else benefits? Oh yes, our dear friends in Redmond, Washington.
They get to sit back and (again) have their sales staffs explain all the
"dangers" of Linux.

You all may think these things good things and today a glorious day. It is --
for SCO and Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

heise.de
Authored by: m_si_M on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:14 PM EST
heise.de's working great again. If you need background information and
understand German, have a look at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/45260.
I'd like to translate it, but I'm awake for more than 20 hours now (in Germany
it's 3:14 A.M. now). So I need some sleep. I'll look up Groklaw tomorrow. If the
basics and links aren't known to the public, I'll do a translation.

---
C.S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tin foil hat
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:18 PM EST
We've blown an undercover sting operation of the DOJ (remember Boies'
represented them in the M$ anti-trust thing) to entice M$ to violate the
law...SCO is a DOJ front

[ Reply to This | # ]

Silicon StemCell and "IPX"
Authored by: John Goodwin on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:19 PM EST
With that in mind, Anderer and a group of entrepreneurs from around the country have formed Silicon Stemcell LLC. The company invests in businesses that it thinks have promising, protectable concepts relating to the Internet and tries to get them ready for venture funding in as little time as possible. "Our goal is to protect, extend and acquire intellectual property," said Anderer, who's Silicon Stemcell's president and chief executive officer.

From -- philadelphia.bizjournals.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

WRITE PRESIDENT BUSH
Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:33 PM EST
I really don't think President Bush would even give a care.

[ Reply to This | # ]

    The Memo is Legit: Going up on the mainstream press
    Authored by: mtflyboy on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:39 PM EST
    A copy of the CNET story is now up on MSNBC.
    "Embattled UNIX company denies Microsoft investment link"
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4451565/

    Oh, the irony

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    But wait... SCO execs don't do email!
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:40 PM EST
    BS said:

    But, Stowell claimed that pundits had mischaracterized the memo's context. 'We believe the e-mail was simply a misunderstanding of the facts by an outside consultant who was working on a specific unrelated project to the BayStar transaction and he was told at the time of his misunderstanding.

    OK, a silly question: If Darl, Chris, and co. don't tend to use their email much (as they told Judge Wells), then how did they know that Mike needed some re-education?

    A non-quite-so-silly question: Could Darl, Chris, and co. not use their corporate email much... because they're using non-corporate email accounts? (Yes, this email shows Sontag's email addr. The question still stands...)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Curioser & curioser
    Authored by: Tim Ransom on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:45 PM EST
    I am both elated and flummoxed. I am eating my hat, shoes and socks. I sting with shame at what I must admit I originally thought about Halloween X (& ESR) - yikes. This could be a powderkeg.
    But why did they admit it? Is it a red herring? Did they have a fit of conscience (pffft)? Was there simply no denying it? Bellicose Blake's feeble spin was alarmingly weak. I wonder though, whether this sinister document will languish with the other hair raising tidbits ESR has come into. MS continues to blithely wage war with impunity. Hopefully, their richly deserved undoing is at hand.

    ---
    Thanks again,

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Attention PJ - Details on 2 other SCO licensees
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:47 PM EST
    http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5170310.html

    1. Questar paid $5,000:


    Questar spokesman Chad Jones was one such person. "The rationale was that Linux is such a minor part of our operations and that our usage is so small and isolated, it made business sense to pay the license fee they were asking rather than risk potential litigation," Jones said. "This was purely a business decision to stay out of court."

    But Jones said his company, in the oil and gas industry, didn't sign the agreement because it supported the legitimacy of SCO's claims. And it didn't pay much: Seven of the company's 100 servers run Linux, and Questar paid about $5,000, he said.



    2. Canopy organized the CA license as part of a lawsuit settlement between Center 7 and CA (that has interesting implications for breaking the corporate veil, no?):

    Computer Associates, which has begun making its management software available on Linux, acknowledged it had the license, but took pains to distance itself from SCO's methods.

    "CA disagrees with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers. CA's license for Linux technology is part of a larger settlement with the Canopy Group. It has nothing to do with SCO's strategy of intimidation," said a statement from Sam Greenblatt, senior vice president and chief architect of CA's Linux Technology Group.

    Greenblatt has been an outspoken Linux fan. "The whole world is going to unite around a single operating system, and it's going to be Linux," he said in a keynote address at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in January.

    The settlement that gave CA the Linux rights took place in August, CA spokeswoman Michelle Healy said. In that settlement, CA agreed to pay $40 million to Canopy and Center 7, a company in which Canopy holds a majority ownership, according to a SCO filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Center 7 sued CA in April 2001, alleging a breach of contract of a software license agreement, CA said in a filing with the SEC.



    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Memo is Legit
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:54 PM EST
    The MS PR machine will spin this as an investment to foster competition in the
    OS market.

    prteacher

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Joel Weinbach, co-founder S2 and Silicon StemCell
    Authored by: John Goodwin on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:55 PM EST
    Conference Speaker

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I Smell a Grue: Digital Broadband and Media Con
    Authored by: John Goodwin on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:01 PM EST
    The digital broadband connection

    Now, who cares about media concentration and set top boxes?

    Digital Broadband, Center 7, control the OS... oh my! Can DRM be far away? Where are those MIT mathematicians when you need them. South Carolina too, as in "The Hon. Sen. from".

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Wired Article
    Authored by: bphenry on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:09 PM EST
    It seems that Wired has it as well but with some more detail. It seems that BayStars biggest investor is Vulcan Capital. Vulcan Capital is owned by Paul Allen. Yes, the co-founder of Microsoft. Enjoy! here

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Wired Article - Authored by: error27 on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:00 AM EST
      • Wired Article - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:38 AM EST
    • Wired Article - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 03:17 PM EST
    Big Trouble Ahead???
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:10 PM EST
    Memo re: acquisitions?

    Wonder if this means finding firms that have "contributed" to Linux?
    Then calling the contributed code their "IP" for e new round of
    lawsuits?

    Scary.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Is IBM after Microsoft?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:15 PM EST

    OK, this memo is from about the same time IBM requested
    documents from BayStar.

    A)So I propose that IBM knew about this either

    1) It was in the emails delivered by SCO
    2) An insider (possibly a sys-admin) delivered to IBM
    every email that went thru their server.

    B) IBM has already spent hundreds of millions dollars
    (including helping Novell buy SuSE) on this case, when
    they could have bought SCO for a fraction of that money,
    and SCO does not have big pockets.

    C) Thus IBM knew that they already had a good chance of
    going after a financial backer with DEEP pockets.

    D) When SCO wanted to amend their suit, IBM said to bring
    it on. (I don't remember if they said "Make my day!".

    E) Every passing day with SCO making statements, possible
    damages IBM could sue for increased.

    F) Then the judge told SCO to shut up(probably much to the
    chagrin of IBM, since it also could put a cap on damages
    IBM could claim).

    G) Then a bad thing occured. SCO started to sue the
    customers, which could cause concern amongst IBM's
    customers.

    H) At this point , one of three things occured.
    1) An SCO insider , coincidentally sent the memo to ESR.
    2) IBM leaked the memo to ESR.
    3) SCO leaked the memo.

    My opinion is that IBM leaked the memo. Why ?
    Because

    1) They did not want the case to do damage to their
    customers confidence in IBM.
    2) They already have done all the investigation and have
    MS by the ... throat...
    3) They figured that the damages they can claim has
    already passed 45 Billion dollars and that is all the
    money MS has.

    Now SCO either knows that they delivered this email to
    IBM, or worse yet , they did not and have no idea if the
    leak was from IBM or from SCO. In either case they have no
    idea what else is out there.

    And beautifully,none of this can be proven.

    So I expect to see within the year

    "Microsoft, a subsidiary of IBM"

    Cheers

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Hey, esr! Watch out for BARIUM!
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:19 PM EST
    "The document below was emailed to me by an anonymous whistleblower inside
    SCO. He tells me the typos and syntax bobbles were in the original."

    A common trick to find leaks is to introduce slight typos in the text, different
    for each recipient. I recommend that all future Halloween docs should be washed
    before publishing.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Why has his picture been removed?
    Authored by: John Goodwin on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:40 PM EST
    You have to read the source code of the Google cache to find out why the other patent number shows up. "rschena" used to be a link here. Google cache

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    PJ - Please read IPX is a patent monitering and advisory firm
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:45 PM EST
    Do a google search for the words "IPX" and "Patent". Voila.

    http://www.ipxonline.com/patentprotection.html

    Looks like this firm offers advice on the patent application process. Nothing to
    do with Novell. The memo makes MUCH more sense if you read it this way.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I Bet SCO Leaked It On Purpose
    Authored by: ErichTheWebGuy on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:55 PM EST
    As an investor, wouldn't you feel more comfortable investing if you knew
    Microsoft, with its untold billions of dollars just sitting around, was backing
    you?

    Is this illegal? I see no reason why it would be. Seems to me that anyone can
    give anyone else as much cash as they want to. I do think that it's dirty and
    underhanded of Microsoft, but then again, when have they ever played fair?

    ---
    Striving daily to be RFC-2550 compliant

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    This is making me sick.
    Authored by: Clay on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:03 PM EST
    OK I am feeling physically ill now.

    This is *really* turning into a good vs. evil thing, I never expected it to go
    this far.

    How can they be permitted to spread so much destruction, even if they won't
    prevail the damage they will do in the process is very sad and useless. I hope
    they go to jail, and when I say that I mean the execs in MS behind this
    conspiracy too. They have all lied to everyone over and over, the judges, the
    press, us, and especially thier own investors.

    It really pains me to see this unfold, like it would pain me to see innocents
    extorted by gangsters, my sense of justice has been totally violated by SCO, M$,
    and all the little fish who eat the parasites in thier skin.

    I try to remember that this is just a phase, that Linux clearly will withstand
    these dramas, like the earth goes on spinning even if we drop a-bombs on it, but
    that isn't what makes me sad. What makes me sad is knowing that there are people
    like this. People who have no moral issues about extorting money for property
    they know they don't own, rightously claiming they are protecting thier
    property, when in fact they are just patsies and puppets to futher the dogams of
    old control structures where information and technology is controlled. The
    injustice of thier absurd perspective make me embarrassed to be the same species
    as them.


    clay


    ---
    ---------------------------
    newObjectivity, Inc. supports the destruction
    of all software patents.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • This is making me sick. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:15 AM EST
    • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:11 PM EST
    Is it live or Memo-wrecks
    Authored by: tz on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:09 PM EST
    SCO needs to revise their strategy.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Film Rights
    Authored by: PM on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:10 PM EST
    PJ. I am sure that Peter Jackson would love to buy the film rights to your
    forthcoming book. I reckon it will be good for at least 11 Oscars. The effects
    will of course be rendered on the large number of Linux boxes his Oscar winning
    (AFAIK they have three, including two from previous years) Weta Digital company
    uses.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Memo is Legit
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:13 PM EST
    The Stock Pump don't work 'cause the Groklaws stole the handles.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Typos
    Authored by: dwandre on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:15 PM EST
    "And by 'the judge' I so (sic) mean Kollar-Kotelly" - maybe should be
    "also"?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Typos? Not PJ. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:26 PM EST
    • Typos - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:54 PM EST
    OT: Is it all about ccur.com?
    Authored by: John Goodwin on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:20 PM EST
    Just a wild guess.

    Let's ask MSN, shall we?

    Other terms:

    TVGateway IPG
    Real Time Linux
    Set top boxes
    Digital media concentration

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Memo is Legit
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:53 PM EST
    I just don't believe M$ft will be punished at all. They were prosecuted dead to
    rights in the last law suit and escaped with nearly no punishment at all. I am
    not sure that the US system can actually punish them. They need to be broken up
    or regulated so harshly that they can't play these games anymore, and I don't
    see that happening. It's too bad. It seems that there isn't a line they will
    not cross when it comes to being greedy.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Memo is Legit
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:56 PM EST
    I figured it out. SCO is bringing all of these lawsuits and making these insane

    public statements in order to overwhelm groklaw with too much information
    to keep track of.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Could it have come from Microsoft's Linux testing lab ?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:11 AM EST
    Hello everyone,
    I was kind of boiling, so I decided to jump in for the first time.

    I was wondering... Didn't Microsoft said few months ago it would set up a lab
    (or something) to compare Linux and Windows side by side? I think that would
    time pretty much with when SCO decided to sue...
    Here's what I think happened. Someone at Microsoft looked at the code and
    pointed out that it looks a bit Unix-ish. The comment made its path higher in
    the organization, and since the company's first goal has always been to crush
    competition before improving its own products, Gates and co. started to look for
    the owner of Unix. And a deal was finally made with SCO. Seen that way, it's
    very Microsoft-ish...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Two reasons why it had to be that way
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:20 AM EST
    1. Why would BayStar suddenly put so much money into a company that owns a soon
    to be obsolete technology and whose Linux division is not really interesting
    anymore? You don't throw money like that without research. But they had nothing
    to lose, since the money came from Microsoft.

    2. SCO seem be thorn into pain between their previous Linux background and
    current status. Their behaviour is somehow contradictory. Saying things like
    "We still like Linux" and then starting to sue Linux customers.

    It just makes no sense. The strings had to be pulled by Microsoft...

    By the way, anyone know what happened to Boies ? If it turns out that the reason
    why he didn't attend the court so far is because he knows he won't win, he might
    know some interesting things we don't know yet...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    MS denies ESR claims, and details what they paid SCO for
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:27 AM EST
    http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,8877305%5E15319%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.h
    tml

    Meanwhile, Microsoft said "the allegations in the posting are not
    accurate".

    "Microsoft has purchased a license to SCO's intellectual property, to
    ensure interoperability and legal indemnification for our customers," the
    company said in a statement.

    "The details of this agreement have been widely reported and this is the
    only financial relationship Microsoft has with SCO. In addition, Microsoft has
    no direct or indirect financial relationship with BayStar."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The VOD Conspiracy Theory: Recap
    Authored by: John Goodwin on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:12 AM EST
    The VOD Conspiracy theory. Is "Silicon StemCell" gathering a patent porfolio for Video on Demand, does VOD have anything to do with Linux, and does Microsoft care?

    Let's start with...

    Concurrent Computer Corp.

    Video on Demand, per Microsoft

    [[Atlanta-based Concurrent (http://www.ccur.com/) has become a leading supplier in the emerging digital video server marketplace, including the broadband and cable, corporate training, education, hospitality, and in-flight entertainment industries. Concurrent's MediaHawk, a high-performance, scalable, digital-video server, delivers true VOD and interactive services for entertainment applications. Concurrent today has an installed base of more than 30,000 systems and recently completed the world's largest residential VOD launch in Hawaii.

    "Concurrent is excited to be working with Microsoft to utilize the power of the Microsoft TV Platform," said Steve Nussrallah, president and CEO of Concurrent. "The Microsoft TV Platform gives the cable operator the power to combine e-commerce and video on demand to enable new services for the cable subscriber."]]

    What platform does MediaHawk run on? How will "Microsoft TV" (shudder) relate to MediaHawk? I wonder if Microsoft cares about VOD, set top boxes, controlling streaming video and what not?

    But the MediaHawk has a cousin, the iHawk.... (both Linux?)

    Concurr ent press release

    The iHawk is Concurrent's high-performance, multiprocessor computer platform based on the Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU. At the heart of the iHawk is Concurrent's RedHawk Linux operating system, compatible with the popular Red Hat Linux distribution. RedHawk's real-time kernel provides enhanced real-time determinism and I/O throughput for high-performance data acquisition applications.

    Concurrent partners with EDAS to deliver simulators.

    Med iahawk.com

    [[According to Rob Menzel, Concurrent Vice President of Worldwide Sales and Marketing, Integrated Solutions Division, The iHawk continues to be the platform of choice for simulation in Europe. Companies such as Eurocopter, Airbus, ESG, HiQ in Sweden and CEV in France are realizing the advantages of Concurrent's iHawk. Our RedHawk Linux, accompanied by our NightStar development tools, are recognized as the premier real-time Linux environment available today.]]

    Heh. Too bad the helicopters aren't black.

    HiQSoft.net hosts ipxonline.com, oddly. They have something they call a content management system. ipxonline.com would of course, be

    ipxonline.com

    IPX partners with HiQSoft to bring you the IPX Competitive Intelligence Solution or ICIS, an interactive software management program for managing and archiving your intellectual property monitoring data over the web.

    quoted here [ipxonline.com]

    Are Silicon StemCell/S2 Partners aka Mike Anderer, Joel Weinbach, and friends, are putting together patent portfolios to get a lock on the Video on Demand? Is that what Mike Anderer means by IPX?

    Lets look at one of their partners, DBAC:

    Companies Robert J. Schena has a part in. DBAC (founded by Schena and located in Penn.) is the one partnering with 3rdwire and Airclic (co-founded by Schena in 1999--I wonder if it is located in Penn.?).

    futurevision.com aka DBAC

    FutureVision
    DBAC (Digital Broadband Application Corp.) Worldwide Packets (removed from webpage and replaced by nonbreaking space)
    Google cache, you have to view source to see "rschena".

    Let's read about DBAC's patent:

    [[In 1994, DBAC filed for several patents, one of which describes the method and system for an Interactive Broadband Multimedia System, which is the ability to download applications to the customer's set-top box and access multimedia information from the set-top box. U.S. Patent Number 5,877,755 issued on March 2, 1999. This patent describes the set-top box as a computer and the interactive television network as any network capable of 2-way communications. The issued claims describe a system for the end user to choose an interactive application from a server, downloading the application and running the application. While in the application, the user can interactively choose to download multimedia files from a server. Multimedia files can be any combination of video, audio and text. Potential licensees include the ability to download music and video over the internet, download multimedia information to cell phones and other wireless devices and download interactive applications to next generation digital set-top boxes. ]]

    MediaH awk and TVGateway IPG (Interactive programming guide)

    ATLANTA, Ga. and TREVOSE, Pa., May 30, 2001 - Concurrent Computer Corporation (NASDAQ: CCUR), the leading provider of digital video solutions on demand, and TVGateway LLC, a cable industry consortium providing a digital interactive program guide (IPG), today announced that Concurrent's MediaHawk Broadband Video-On-Demand (VOD) System is the first VOD application integrated with the TVGateway IPG to achieve Motorola Acadia validation. The Concurrent-TVGateway integration was designed to operate using WorldGate (NASDAQ: WGAT) CableWare� open-standards middleware platform on Motorola�s current generation DCT2000 interactive digital cable set-top platform.

    Note Motorola Broadband here.

    It's amazing how many companies, all located in Penn., and related to Schena, with so many different technologies. It's VOD, it's set top, it's wireless, it goes through and around walls-- It is also a "disaster technology" (Rajant corporation, located in Penn.)

    Robert J. Schena and Rajant

    Flying autonomous helicopters (not black--I wonder if they fly in Penn.?):

    Helicoptor [neural-robotics]

    More about Rajant:

    August 2002 article about Rajant

    "non line of sight" wireless transmission. I wonder if that works around the house?

    Rajant is in partnership with DBAC, 3rdwire, and Sarnoff corporations. I haven't looked up the last two, but I do wonder if they are located in Penn.

    Wait a minute, ROInet (located in Penn.) claims it too, under "what we've done"!

    Paul Hellhake, Co-founder of DBAC http://www.futurevision.com/team.html also is founder and President of ROI Computer Services, Inc. Maybe that has something to do with roinet.com.

    What we've done

    WorldGate and Motorola Broadband. Hmm..

    WorldGate sells certain iTV assets to TVGateway. Both, incidentally, are partners of Concurrent (located in Penn.)

    8/2003 press release

    10/2003 press release

    8-k

    TVGateway plans to integrate with Concurrent's VOD

    i.e. on the Motorola DCT-2000 set-top platform:

    Concurrent press release

    Nice background piece by the FCC (12/31/2002):

    FCC on Media Concentration

    If wonder if Microsoft wants to use Linux in set top boxes for Video on demand, but only if they control it first, so naturally they are interested in all this too. Tying Microsoft to the Silicon StemCell portfolio would be interesting to Linux advocates and foes of Media concentration--and not just because SCO is in play. More is at stake than SCO. Much more.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Memo is Legit
    Authored by: photocrimes on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:16 AM EST
    Has everyone seen these? Why does it seem like everyone who deals with this
    company has a stock deal going on with them:

    Sun Microsystems:

    http://contracts.onecle.com/sco/sun.warrant.2003.03.shtml
    http://contracts.onecle.com/sco/sun.warrant.2003.08.shtml
    http://contracts.onecle.com/sco/sun.warrant.2003.10.shtml

    S2 Strategic Consulting LLC:

    http://contracts.onecle.com/sco/s2.warrant.2003.07.01.shtml

    This part never rang so true:

    >>>
    Expiration. This Warrant shall expire upon the first to occur of the
    following: (i) 5:00 p.m., Mountain Standard time, on July 2, 2005; and (ii) the
    sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company or an acquisition
    of the Company by another corporation or entity by consolidation, merger or
    other reorganization or series of related transactions in which the holders of
    the Company's outstanding voting stock immediately prior to such transaction
    own, immediately after such transaction, securities representing less than fifty
    percent (50%) of the voting power of the surviving corporation, the surviving
    entity or the entity that controls such surviving entity (such sale of assets or
    acquisition, a "Merger or Consolidation").
    <<<

    Guess they'll be cashing out soon.

    ---
    //A picture is worth a thousand words//

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    This is getting so wierd
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:16 AM EST
    Ok... so to summarize the last several days:

    1) SCO sues two more 500lb gorillas whose reactions will likely involve lawyers
    of the Nazgul variety.
    2) SCO apparently lies (!) about who is licensing their software. Some of SCO's
    apparent licensees are saying "wait a minute? what license?"
    3) A memo is leaked showing that MSFT may have indeed been funding this whole
    thing.
    4) Another leak shows that SCO was planning to *cripple a large bank* using the
    DMCA. That's got to peeve some people in high places, and in general makes Darl
    look like a big douchebag.

    #2 is particularly wierd. Just plain wierd.

    Is it just me, or do they seem to be flailing around uncontrollably now. Did
    Darl switch from Wild Turkey to methamphetamine or something?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Harder to trace
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:37 AM EST
    It's easy to trace infusion of capital from the likes of Baystar and MS
    licensing of SCO IP, but what about publicly traded stocks? I'm beginning to
    wonder now if M$ used that channel to infuse SCO with litigation money. It may
    be a slower mechanism, but is much more difficult to trace back. Doing it this
    way would also give the illusion of investor confidence.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Harder to trace - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST
    The Memo is Legit
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:59 AM EST
    I really trust that SCO & Microsoft are 'dealt with' in an
    appropriate manner, by the relevant authorities.

    IMHO, SCO's actions are criminal...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    WRITE PRESIDENT BUSH
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 04:30 AM EST
    You are assuming that President Bush knows how to read, which is unclear.
    We already know that he chooses not to read.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Someone Inside
    Authored by: PJ on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 05:03 AM EST
    I removed the subject line on this thread, because it was a bit crude for
    Groklaw, but I preserved the comments:


    Someone inside

    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:37 PM EST

    My question is who is this insider and how/why did he get ahold of Sontag's
    email. Then...why in the hell did Stowell not deny it? Is this guy using these
    things to get a piece of that 86 million from SCO?




    Someone inside

    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST


    more likely, IMO, IBM has had this email
    for some time now ...




    Someone inside

    Authored by: hardcode57 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:33 PM EST


    In which case someone inside needs to find something more substantial to
    hold onto.




    Someone inside

    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:14 PM EST


    This whole episode makes me laugh. I have said from the start, on Groklaw,
    ZDNet, and Slashdot, that the SCO execs are idiots. How would someone get
    hold of Sontag's e-mail? Well, neither Sontag nor that village idiot McBride
    probably have the slightest idea of how their e-mail systems work. Who does?
    The geeky sysadmins who probably hate their guts. I have NEVER seen an
    exec who was very savvy technically- even though they are usually the ones
    "calling the shots" for their company, and "planning bold visions
    and
    strategies." And again, like I said more than once- someone, or more than
    one person, has been collecting evidence against these executives- e-mails,
    voice recordings, etc. If Sontag and McBride popped open the cases of their
    office computers, or peered behind some of the plastic plates screwed into
    their office walls, they would probably find bugging devices. They should be
    very worried- someone does not like them.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Memo is Legit
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 05:20 AM EST
    Why dosent M$ just buy out SCO?



    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Bank of America
    Authored by: gbl on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 05:38 AM EST
    Why would SCO pick out BoA? IIRC, a US bank with operations in more than one
    state would be investigated by the FBI should they be hit with a DMCA case.

    I doubt that SCO would really want Mulder and Scully poking around :-)


    ---
    If you love some code, set it free.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Let IBM sue.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 05:45 AM EST
    I would remind people that Judge Kostlar-Kennedy (
    who acts like she would love to have Bill Gates love
    child ) is a Clinton appointee and that Thomas
    Penfield Jackson ( who tore into MS real good ) was
    a Reagan appointee: furthermore; the appeal of the
    decision ( in the state's case ) and the Tunney
    hearing were argued in front of the Appeals Court
    with Robert Bork making the antiMicrosoft oral arguments.

    Politics in this case are quite complicated.

    The Clinton DoJ did not just decide to take Microsoft
    to court. The spent five years and a consent decree
    hoping that MS was a company that could be dealt with.
    Eventually they realised that: 1) MS can not be dealt
    with, and 2) the damage to the economy caused by sueing MS
    is less than the damage to the economy of allowing MS
    to go around unfethered.

    Hopefully, the Bush DoJ will reach the same conclusion.
    Hopefully too, we will not have to deal with this phenomena
    with every new administration ( but I fear we will--
    unless Nadar wins ).

    In any case people forget that the first significant
    antitrust decision against AT&T was not by the DoJ,
    but by MCI.

    This memo seems to indicate that MS did engage in
    antitrust behaviour ( specifically monopoly maintanance ),
    and that IBM is a damaged party.

    Let IBM take MS to court. If they win, they will even
    get triple damages, which can get very high in this case.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Memo is Legit
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 07:46 AM EST
    Could they be pushing the stock price down. To clean up and clear out?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Last Gasp
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 08:06 AM EST
    This is the ultimate variation on the Wookiee defense. Grab the biggest damn
    Wookiee you can find and toss it in front of the oncoming bus.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A tinfoil hat thought about the Canopy MS settlement
    Authored by: Gruntmaster6000 on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 08:32 AM EST
    Here's a lack of sleep inspired conspiracy theory:
    What if the real reason behind the surprise settlement between Caldera and Microsoft. over DRDos, which is billed as a mutually agreeable solution, was really the kickoff deal between Canopy and Microsoft? The $150M settlement MS paid to Caldera is alleged to have disappeared into Canopy and the documents from that case are destroyed at the behest of Canopy.  I envision an 11th hour call between Lindon and Redmond . I wonder what a little digging on Ralph Yarro would turn up?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    illiterate
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 09:32 AM EST
    Is this really a memo written by a literate, English speaking American? This has
    to be the most pathetic example of sloppiness I have ever seen in my life - I
    doubted the authenticity because I didn't believe that an educated business
    person could write so poorly.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What is MS after?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 10:55 AM EST
    This memo jolted a thought into existence in my brain, via Microsoft's continued
    interest in this case. Is it possible/likely that SCO will get it's grubby
    little hands on something, through either a lawsuit or discovery process, that
    Microsoft would be willing to pay handsomely to obtain?

    Thought process:
    1) Microsoft needs to either control Linux or destroy it.
    2) Microsoft's lawyers are very good at what they do, and have gone up against
    IBM many times.
    3) If anyone's actions through all this have been predictable, it is those of
    IBM's lawyers.

    And here is where the jolt comes in. I can understand Microsoft dropping
    license fees to SCO for FUD purposes. However, realizing how little chance the
    effort has of eventually succeeding, why would MS engage in continuing to fund
    SCO's legal expenses? As long as the lawsuit merely exists, it's FUD purposes
    are served. Why take the risk of appearing to be SCO's sugar daddy?

    So, is it possible that SCO will obtain something that will make it worthwhile
    for Microsoft to sweep in and buy the company? Besides MS Linux, find it hard
    to believe they would want to start with SCO.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Press
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 11:24 AM EST

    It the American press out of it or what? The Com puter Weekly headline declares that SCO 'squashes' the 'Microsoft funding speculation,' whereas the Yahoo News headline announces that SCO 'refutes' the allegation. (My dictionary uses the word 'prove' in the definition of refute.) Neither has any information other than Sontag's denial.

    It's hard to believe how the press can slant headlines to give the impression that they want to give. Sigh ...

    Wally Bass

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • The Press - Authored by: DB on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 02:43 PM EST
    How and Why
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:54 PM EST
    The memo isn't a plant or a conscious leak. Remember that SCO was Caldera and
    sold Linux. In fact a lot of SCO's products still depend on OSS/GPL. Obviously
    there are people working for SCO who disagree with the fight with the OSS
    community, but can't afford to just walk away from their jobs and/or have the
    ethics that Darl and crowd lack.

    SCO executives have at least enough active brain cells to decide to admit it's
    real, because they're pretty sure they'll be found out otherwise, BUT they're
    going to spin it as "someone else", "an outsider", "a
    misunderstanding", etc. They reacted very quickly, which probably means
    that they haven't (yet again) thought it through. This will turn out to be the
    Watergate Moment ("Tape recordings???") of this whole irritating SCO
    vs Linux soap apera.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Not good... (for SCO and M$ anyway)
    Authored by: pooky on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 03:46 PM EST
    This doesn't bode well for SCO's appearance of having legitimate claims. I don't
    think that many are going to buy the "its just a big misunderstanding"
    theory SCO is using as an excuse when the memo is pretty well straightforward in
    stating exactly what Microsoft has contributed so far, apparently brokered by
    S2. It kind of makes SCO look like they are simply trying to slow Linux down for
    Microsoft until Longhorn and TCI get off the ground, and by the amounts being
    tossed around, I'd say Microsoft is willing to spend hundreds of millions to
    stave off Linux.

    Perhaps the DOJ should reconsider whether Microsoft's ways have been mended.
    This is clearly an instance where Microsoft is paying someone to do their dirty
    work and trying hard to hide their involvement in the whole mess.

    I'd like to see Microsoft get dragged through the ringer in discovery along with
    SCO in light that SCO wouldn't really exist as a company if not for Microsoft's
    "investment". Clearly Microsoft is propping SCO up financially to be
    the attack dog, seems IBM and/or Novell need to make an effort to determine to
    what level Microsoft is directing SCO's actions, since IBM at least is accusing
    SCO of all sorts of wrongdoing.

    -pooky

    ---
    Veni, vidi, velcro.
    "I came, I saw, I stuck around."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Boies is after Microsoft
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 04:22 PM EST
    As long as we're entertaining bizarre conspiracy theories, has anyone considered
    that maybe Boies was less than content with the outcome of the Microsoft
    anti-trust case, and has been secretly planning on exposing MS's ongoing
    attempts to stifle the comptetition? He found SCO early last year, and pushed
    Darl and co. to sue IBM. The FUD machine gets the Linux community angry, and
    the lawsuit becomes widely recognized as a threat to Linux/OSS. Microsoft,
    recognizing a quick avenue to oppress the masses, funnels some cash to SCO.
    Then SCO announces lawsuits against some "500 lbs. gorillas", makes it
    known that they wanted to cripple a bank, and gets a lot of press. Just when
    the press coverage is highest, Boies orchestrates the leak of this memo,
    maximizing the exposure (and drama, I might add) of the leak. Bam, Boies gets
    revenge.

    IANAL, but I bet I'm taller than most.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Memo is Legit
    Authored by: NastyGuns on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 04:26 PM EST
    Someone mentioned that the major news outlets are starting to catch on and that even MSN had a story (here) about SCOG's statement of it being a misunderstanding. Yet, what I find questionable is that MSN doesn't include a link to that story on the stock quotes page, unlike the stories about SCOG sueing everyone and their mother. Well, they can be biased all they want, I for one am at the point of believing that none of the news agency's have any integrity left to report facts instead of sensationalism. Ole well, maybe it's just me and my cynicism.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    *twitch* Wait a minute!
    Authored by: Tomas on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 04:48 PM EST
    I just had a sudden thought about this particular e-mail and another significance it might have.

    IIRC IBM asked for copies of ALL e-mails such as this and SCO supposedly responded and supplied them.

    This gives two options in my mind.

    1. IBM already had a copy of this (and other related e-mails) in the discovery information provided to them by SCO, or
    2. SCO, while claiming to provide responsive discovery, did NOT provide this or related e-mails.

    Either way this can play out badly for SCO, and at this point I'm not sure which would be worse.

    Anyone else have any idea how SCO not providing this to IBM already would play in court? How does this compare to if they DID provide it?

    ---
    Tom
    en.gin.eer en-ji-nir n 1: a mechanism for converting caffeine into designs.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Memo is Legit: ruminations
    Authored by: AllParadox on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 05:07 PM EST
    Here are an old trial lawyer's ruminations and SWAG:

    1. Memo is real, because they admitted it. SCO did not intentionally leak it.
    It damages way too much in terms of all the pending lawsuits. Very, very
    destructive. Judges, and Federal Judges in particular, put unbelievable amounts
    of effort and work into giving all parties a fair shot and a fair forum. Being
    caught as a shill for a non-party is a disaster, a direct insult to the Judge.
    IMHO, it is Direct Contempt. (ie Go directly to Jail, Do not collect $200,
    Forget anything about a trial, a jury, or an appeal, Judge will let you out when
    they darn well feel like it. Won't happen here, but trust me, this is still Not
    A Good Thing)

    2. SCO is no longer working with M$. Time is the important measure here. If
    they were still working with M$, they would have had to communicate with M$, and
    waited for M$ to decide how to handle and spin it. SCO could easily have
    stalled for a week, and M$ got to be a big company by making thoughtful
    decisions. You do not make a thoughtful decision about a surprise like this in
    less than 24 hours.

    2.1 supplement:SCO is no longer working with M$, because the memo indicates
    that SCO is expecting more support money, but the 10Q shows the money has not
    arrived.

    3. This looks like familiar behavior. SCO is quite extended with all the
    lawsuits. They may have believed that they would be continuously supported by
    M$. Now that they are deep into the fight, there is no support. Once the memo
    was leaked, SCO management had to make a decision about the course of action.
    My wild speculation is that they said to themselves "Screw 'em. If they
    won't support us, we won't protect them. Hey, B.S., admit it in the press
    conference. What can M$ do to us now? After all, it's true"

    4. Most lawyers I know would not make a decision about something like this in
    less than a week. This is not a trial where a split-second response is
    critical. It would be difficult just to list all the reasonable options in less
    than a day. Writing reasonable options down is easy. Thinking them all up is
    the slow part, especially the consequences. Speculate that this is a poorly
    planned or thought-out action, as so many others appear to be.

    5. Outsider hubris may have snuck in. It may well be that the folks in Lindon
    think the fellows in Redmond are as much "gentiles" as they do me, and
    are angry with them. As for me, I would think long and carefully about
    double-crossing any $24 Billionaire. Doing it to a whole company full of them is
    pretty close to my definition of insanity.

    6. My own guess is that this is a Butterfield moment. (as in "Q: Do you
    know of any recording of these conversations, Mr. Butterfield? A: Uh, ........
    yes.)

    ---
    All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
    opinion. For a real legal opinion, take out your money and buy one from
    somebody wit

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Leaked Memo
    Authored by: lvteacher on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 06:16 PM EST
    Having spent a long career in business and being a news junkie, I have to
    question the concept of a "leaked memo."

    Businesses take extreme care of the files, internal documents and
    correspondence. A LEAKED MEMO IS RARE. The concept of a leaked memo is to add
    importance and/or credibility to something. (Like Bill Gates' leaked internal
    memo about "Trustworthy Computing.)

    I suspect that many Linux users "potential lixensees" may have felt
    that SCO would go under soon, "so why purchase a license from them
    (SCO)."

    I think that the memo was "leaked" deliberatly to let SCO's potential
    licencees know that SCO has some resources (deep pockets) to stay around for a
    while.

    prteacher

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    heise.de (2)
    Authored by: m_si_M on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 07:45 PM EST
    If anybody is interested, here's what Heise wrote about Anderer:

    From: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/45260

    SCO vs. Linux: Mysteries, guessing, and reactions

    [...]

    Anderer is a friend of Richard Emerson
    [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2000/Nov00/EmersonPR.asp]. Together
    with Darl McBride he worked at IKON Office Solution, which was succesfully
    litigated by McBride. Together with other staff personell from IKON Anderer
    founded Silicon
    Stemmcell[http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/1999/09/06/st
    ory6.html], a company which developed the idea to cash on the IP of companies.
    With his company S2 Strategic Consulting
    [http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000104746904002142/a2127332zex-1
    0_15.htm] is an advisor of SCO on the matter of selling licenses. Anderer is
    possibly the mastermind, together with Darl McBride, who developed the strategy
    to head against IBM and Novell, but also against former customers like AutoZone
    and Daimler Chrysler.

    [...]

    (So ist Anderer mit dem in der Mail als "Rich" bezeichneten Richard
    Emerson befreundet. Zusammen mit Darl McBride war Anderer bei IKON Office
    Solution beschäftigt, die erfolgreich von McBride verklagt wurden. Mit Managern
    von IKON gründete Anderer schließlich die Firma Silicon Stemmcell, die die Idee
    entwickelte, aus dem geistigen Eigentum von Firmen Kapital zu schlagen. Mit
    seiner Firma S2 Strategic Consulting berät Anderer die SCO Group, wie die
    IP-Lizenzen verkauft werden können. Anderer könnte als Mastermind zusammen mit
    Darl McBride die Strategie entwickelt haben, mit der die SCO Group ihren Kurs
    gegen IBM und Novell, aber auch gegen ehemalige Kunden wie Autozone und
    DaimlerCrysler fährt.)



    ---
    C.S.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What does this say of Boies?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 09:08 PM EST
    So we have a guy who successfully prosecuted Microsoft for anti-trust violations
    and is now helping to perpetuate the very behavior for which he originally took
    them to court.

    Granted, there's a lot of "ifs" to be worked out here

    If this memo is true (which SCO says it is)
    and if the implication can be verified (MS funnelled $ to SCO) and if Boies
    knows the true source of the SCO fundage ...

    But... if all the above is true, what does this say of Boies ethics?


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    is msft funnelling $ to scox illegal?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 01:31 AM EST

    Certainly it's unethical, but does it cross the line? Is it actually illegal?

    I think the legallity of this is, at least, questionable. Msft is a convicted
    monopolist, I think msft works under certain restrictions that other companies
    do not.

    Furthermore, I think scox's actions are clearly illegal, it's just taking the US
    courts forever to get around to trying scox. Scox is threatening to sue
    companies for using linux, unless those companies pay scox a lot of money. Scox
    has not established they have any grounds for such lawsuits; this is clearly a
    protection racket - and msft is funding scox - which means msft is in on it. If
    I hire a hit-man to kill somebody, I would be guilty of murder. Msft has clearly
    hired a hit-man.

    Bottom line: msft is paying to illegal threaten the competition with bogus
    lawsuits. I would consider that: fraud, extortion, barratry, and unfair
    competition.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    'Prescient' posting from January 2004
    Authored by: doughnuts_lover on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 10:00 AM EST
    Interesting posting to the SCOX Yahoo message board:

    The Microsoft connection?
    by: elcorton
    Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Sell 01/29/04 11:50 am
    Msg: 87038 of 105133


    Tinfoil hat time again. Two of the exhibits to the 10-K refer to an entity called "S2 Strategic Consulting, LLC": Exhibit 10.15, entitled

    "INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT Between SCO OPERATIONS, INC. And S2 Strategic Consulting, LLC" and effective July 1, 2003,

    and

    Exhibit 10.16, entitled "COMMON STOCK WARRANT" and effective on the same date.

    The IC agreement absolves SCO of any liability for S2's work on its behalf, and spells out what that work is:

    1. Scope of Services. IC will assist SCO as its non-exclusive advisor in connection with the formulation and implementation of various options for Intellectual property management, corporate restructuring, reorganization, channel development, joint ventures and other strategic alternatives for SCO under a variety of mechanisms. In connection with IC's role as advisor, IC will engage in the following activities ... :

    (i) advise SCO generally of available options relating to SCO's Intellectual property, including recommendations of specific courses of action and assist SCO in researching, licensing and leveraging these properties in the most effective manner in the market place.

    (ii) assist SCO with the development, negotiation and implementation of a Transaction, as defined below, including participation as a representative of SCO in negotiations with licensees, business partners and others who may be violating the company's property rights.

    [...]

    (vii) assist in the preparation of proposals to licensees, employees, shareholders, partners and other parties-in-interest in connection with any Transaction;

    [...]

    As used herein, the term "Transaction" shall mean, collectively: (i) the development of SCO's Intellectual property including licensing, securing, enhancing or monetization of SCO's patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets ...



    The agreement also provides for various forms of compensation, including a warrant for 25,000 shares of restricted common stock. Both the IC agreement and the warrant are signed on S2's behalf by one Michael Anderer, CEO.

    Sounds like this "S2 Strategic Consulting" is important -- what is it? A Google search on the name is negative. Who is Michael Anderer? Someone of that name started a company in South Carolina called "The Computer Group," which was acquired in 1996 by IKON Office Solutions:

    www.nasbic.org/success/stories/tcg.cfm

    Remember who was senior VP of IKON in 1996? Could be that Anderer owes McBride a big favor. What else is Anderer up to these days? It seems that he's also the CEO of another LLC called Entirenet, which also has dealings in South Carolina:

    www.entirenet.net/11_19_2002_Hunterstone.asp

    Entirenet is a Windows/.Net shop that lists Microsoft as its premier client:

    www.entirenet.net/aboutus.aspx

    In the investigations that will follow the collapse of SCO, expect Anderer to figure prominently, and expect McBride to be shocked -- shocked -- to discover that the architect of his strategy against Linux was also reporting to Microsoft.

    Posting available here.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Memo is Legit
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 11:41 AM EST
    I came across this post on the Yahoo SCOX message board.
    Can anyone with better investigative skills than I confirm
    or follow up on the info it contains? For some reason a
    copy/paste of the URL does not seem to work all that well.
    If that message date is (1/24/04) correct this poster was
    on the right track even before the leaked email news.
    The message is #87038

    http://messages.yahoo.com/
    bbs?.mm=GN&action=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&
    ;mid=87038&um=50&.sig=YdXi3AMbJLZ6eThJzK7SIA--

    The Microsoft connection?
    by: elcorton
    Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Sell
    01/29/04 11:50 am
    Msg: 87038 of 105161

    Tinfoil hat time again. Two of the exhibits to the 10-K
    refer to an entity called "S2 Strategic Consulting, LLC":
    Exhibit 10.15, entitled "INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
    Between SCO OPERATIONS, INC. And S2 Strategic Consulting,
    LLC" and effective July 1, 2003,

    www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/
    data/1102542/000104746904002142/a2127332zex-10_15.htm

    and Exhibit 10.16, entitled "COMMON STOCK WARRANT" and
    effective on the same date,

    www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/
    data/1102542/000104746904002142/a2127332zex-10_16.htm .

    The IC agreement absolves SCO of any liability for S2's
    work on its behalf, and spells out what that work is:

    <quote>

    1. Scope of Services. IC will assist SCO as its
    non-exclusive advisor in connection with the formulation
    and implementation of various options for Intellectual
    property management, corporate restructuring,
    reorganization, channel development, joint ventures and
    other strategic alternatives for SCO under a variety of
    mechanisms. In connection with IC's role as advisor, IC
    will engage in the following activities ... :

    (i) advise SCO generally of available options relating to
    SCO's Intellectual property, including recommendations of
    specific courses of action and assist SCO in researching,
    licensing and leveraging these properties in the most
    effective manner in the market place.

    (ii) assist SCO with the development, negotiation and
    implementation of a Transaction, as defined below,
    including participation as a representative of SCO in
    negotiations with licensees, business partners and others
    who may be violating the company's property rights.

    [...]

    (vii) assist in the preparation of proposals to licensees,
    employees, shareholders, partners and other
    parties-in-interest in connection with any Transaction;

    [...]

    As used herein, the term "Transaction" shall mean,
    collectively: (i) the development of SCO's Intellectual
    property including licensing, securing, enhancing or
    monetization of SCO's patents, copyrights, trademarks, and
    trade secrets ...

    </quote>

    The agreement also provides for various forms of
    compensation, including a warrant for 25,000 shares of
    restricted common stock. Both the IC agreement and the
    warrant are signed on S2's behalf by one Michael Anderer,
    CEO.

    Sounds like this "S2 Strategic Consulting" is important --
    what is it? A Google search on the name is negative. Who
    is Michael Anderer? Someone of that name started a company
    in South Carolina called "The Computer Group," which was
    acquired in 1996 by IKON Office Solutions:

    www.nasbic.org/success/stories/tcg.cfm

    Remember who was senior VP of IKON in 1996? Could be that
    Anderer owes McBride a big favor. What else is Anderer up
    to these days? It seems that he's also the CEO of another
    LLC called Entirenet, which also has dealings in South
    Carolina:

    www.entirenet.net/11_19_2002_Hunterstone.aspx

    Entirenet is a Windows/.Net shop that lists Microsoft as
    its premier client:

    www.entirenet.net/aboutus.aspx

    In the investigations that will follow the collapse of
    SCO, expect Anderer to figure prominently, and expect
    McBride to be shocked -- shocked -- to discover that the
    architect of his strategy against Linux was also reporting
    to Microsoft.


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Why MS might be interested in helping SCO
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 12:28 PM EST
    Hey,

    The real threat currently facing MS is +not+ linux itself.
    The thing that worries MS is public acceptance of Open Source as a viable
    solution.

    If I were MS, watching the SCO case, here's what I'd do:
    Option 1: SCO wins. MS wins. MS benefits directly from this.
    Option 2: SCO loses. Make SCO take as much down with it as possible, to benefit
    MS.

    Option 2 in detail:

    Nothing gets the opensource community angry like people who threaten the kernel.
    The combined rage of a group of talented programmers an order of magnitude
    larger than MS, who are in key places, and responsible for key projects... all
    angry? These people being the representatives for open source software?

    Make these people look bad, and the good-public-image of open source takes a Big
    hit.

    Let me clarify: If 3 years from now, Linux becomes a PC store suggested
    alternative to Longhorn... then this is a Very bad prospect for MS.
    MS clearly can't provide a +better+ product, so the only option is to discredit
    the viability of the competition!
    And they can't use FUD (in the same way that they used to), 'cause they're being
    watched now.
    So they have to make the open source hackers look bad.

    How to do this?

    Martyrize SCO.

    SCO loses; despite being supported by MS, who stand for Capitalism, the Good Ole
    American Way, and DEFINITELY NOT COMMUNISM.
    [stuff in 'primes' is what i expect to hear from MS eventually]

    'These Open Source people have used -disreputable- means to benefit from a good
    ole american company. They have STOLEN COPYRIGHT MATERIAL! OS coders have
    -abused- IP rights, and stood up against MS, the company with the most IP of
    all! They're COMMUNISTS and CRIMINALS.'

    'First they destroy good, honest, reliable software companies like SCO; what
    next? They plan to take down MICROSOFT! And where would any of us be without
    Office?'

    'And you wouldn't want to use software by COMMUNISTS, would you? You'd never use
    software by people who OPENLY CALL THEMSELVES HACKERS! Imagine what could be
    happening to your sensitive personal information! You know where you stand with
    MS. You know we'll defend you, your rights to use your computer, and the good
    old american way!'

    Remember, Open Source software is gaining acceptance, but its market share is
    not big. It is not well known to, or used by, the public. If you disagree, then
    you need to be very glad that you are in a good situation; but if you step back,
    and consider the economics (by install), OS is very small, on a world scale.

    I think that all the SCO and MS hatred that I've read on this board is a bad
    sign; do you want to be quoted, after the event?

    I work for a Very technically acceptant company, yet the management still ask
    questions about the legality of using 'free' (open source) software.
    Everybody knows where they stand with MS.

    Just my 2c.

    [ 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 )