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
Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:07 AM EST

SCO has been telling the world that Computer Associates took a license. Not precisely so, says a VP at CA, according to Newsforge:
CA senior VP of product development Mark Barrenechea says that Bench’s claim is nonsense. CA has not paid SCO any Linux taxes, he said.

Drawing up short of calling SCO a liar, Barrenechea claims that SCO has twisted a $40 million breach-of-contract settlement that CA paid last summer to the Canopy Group, SCO’s biggest stockholder, and Center 7, another Canopy company, and has turned it into a purported Linux license.

As a "small part" of that settlement, Barrenechea said, CA got a bunch of UnixWare licenses that it needed to support its UnixWare customers. SCO, he said, had just attached a transparent Linux indemnification to all UnixWare licenses and that is how SCO comes off calling CA a Linux licensee.

Barrenechea said that SCO was dropping CA’s name to associate itself with the "third-largest software company in the world" and build support for its "lost cause."

But according to Barrenechea, not only are SCO’s IP ambitions doomed, but its Unix interests are a "trailing negative" on the road to dropping from 10% of the market to 3%-5% in a few years and then "SCO will be irrelevant," he said.

You can read the rest here.

Stephen Shankland has another VP, a senior VP at CA, who says they do have a license, but he confirms they got it as part of the settlement, not because they just signed up wanting one recently:
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.

You may recall the earlier settlement of the lawsuit brought against Computer Associates by Canopy Group. Maureen O'Gara reported the settlement was between CA and Canopy Group and Center 7, another Canopy company:
According to a settlement cut Monday on the courthouse steps with the Canopy Group and Canopy company Center 7 while they were picking a jury inside, Computer Associates is to pay a cool $40 million to get out from under breach-of-contract charges. . . .

Need we point out that it's a small world and that the Canopy Group is the largest stockholder in the rogue SCO Group and that Center 7, a Canopy foundation, is one of SCO's sister companies, part of a joint venture handling SCO's Volution remote install technology, and that Computer Associates is squarely on IBM's side in the Linux debate that SCO, ahem, has launched? To be really ironic, we might also mention in passing that CA was an investor in Center 7 and that Center 7's CEO Chris Skillings is an ex-CA regional sales VP. . . .

The suit, which apparently charged CA with competing against Center 7 and wooing the same customers, dates to 2001, the year the strategic alliance between the two companies was cut. Skillings was hired to launch PilotCenterSM. He says CA is no longer considered an investor.

So, if Canopy back in August was hustling a SCO license as part of a deal that SCO wasn't even involved in, how sturdy is that corporate veil now, do you think? Time will tell. Reporters smell blood now, and some of them are starting to do what reporters can do so well, really dig.

As for Questar, Questar Gas is a Vultus customer and here is some information about Vultus:

Vultus has received initial seed funding from the Canopy Group Investment Company. Canopy serves as a technology accelerating venture capital firm for Vultus with a focus on growing the high-tech industry: first by funding and influencing emerging leading-edge technologies, then by providing a nurturing and dynamic environment in which Vultus can thrive and grow.

About Vultus, Inc.

Vultus, Inc., delivers the most technically advanced Web service user interface products and development tools available today. The company leverages the power of XML technology, JavaScript and HTML to deliver a Windows-rich user experience in an Internet browser environment. Vultus offers SOAP-enabled technology that supports the latest UDDI and WSDL industry recommendations. The company specializes in developing a dynamic presentation layer - designed through WebFace Studio - streamlining Internet application development to make it faster, simpler, and much more predictable. Vultus is located in Lindon, Utah and its customers include Questar Gas, the Utah Department of Public Safety and the Wyoming Department of Public Safety.

Shankland adds this detail as well:
And in another tie between the two companies, SCO became in April 2003 a worldwide distributor of Center 7 management software called Volution, according to an SEC filing from SCO on April 30.

The Canopy Group is SCO's largest investor, holding 38.7 percent of SCO's stock, according to a Feb. 27 SEC filing from SCO.

Yes, sir. One big inbred family, with Canopy smack dab in the middle.

UPDATE:

Robert McMillan has taken this story the next lap. Not only does he confirm the CA story and fine-tune it, it seems Leggett & Platt didn't take a license either, so far as they know:

Separately, another company mentioned as a SCO Linux licensee on Thursday denied knowledge of any such agreement. Though SCO's Bench had confirmed Carthage Missouri's Leggett & Platt Inc. as a licensee on Wednesday, a spokesman for the manufacturing company said that he had no knowledge of such a deal. "I have now talked to our people who handle our Linux systems and, at least at a corporate level, we have not bought such a license from SCO Group," said John Hale, the company's vice president of human resources. "To their knowledge they would not have an interest in doing so," he said.

"It's conceivable -- we're a large far-flung corporation -- that some unit of Leggett & Platt in some part of the country may have been persuaded to buy such a license, but if they did we are not aware of it," Hale said.

One financial analyst said that the conditions surrounding the CA license did not cast a favorable light on SCO, which has claimed that Linux illegally contains some of its Unix code.

"I think it just speaks to the weakness of their case. Why could (CA) have not been convinced to take a license without legal action," said Dion Cornett, a managing director with Decatur Jones Equity Partners LLC.

Microsoft has put out a statement:
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."

Stephen Shankland and Ina Fried on CNET News.com have one more intriguing morsel:
When Microsoft was asked specifically whether it or any of its employees played a role in connecting SCO to BayStar, the company declined to comment."
Hiawatha Bray spoke to Bay Star's Bob McGrath:
Bob McGrath, a spokesman for BayStar, also dismissed the contents of the message. "The question was asked: Is Microsoft a participant in this investment by BayStar? The short answer is no."
Maybe we need to ask a longer question. Wired has this tidbit:
BayStar Capital is a private equity fund that makes direct investments in privately held and publicly traded companies. One of BayStar's largest investors, according to BayStar (PDF), is Vulcan Capital, the private investment vehicle of Paul Allen. Allen co-founded Microsoft with Bill Gates, and is the second-largest Microsoft shareholder after Gates.

At the time the investment was announced last November, questions were raised over Microsoft's possible participation in the investment. But BayStar and SCO both denied any Microsoft involvement when the investment was announced.

You know what I just realized? I believe this memo means that IBM can subpoena Microsoft and ask for their email and documents .... ah! Whoever you are, whistleblower, we salute you!

  


Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License | 422 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Updates and URLs Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:10 AM EST
Please put updates and urls in this thread so it's easy to find.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:12 AM EST
This is really sweet. The crumbling of SCO is accelerating, and pretty much
everyone is lining uo to distance themselves. DiDio has begun, and I'm sure that
we will see Enderle and Lyons doing the same pretty soon. Rats and sinking ships
is really all I can think of...

[ Reply to This | # ]

2 additional license discrepencies? Ev1servers and Leggett + Platt
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:19 AM EST
EV1SERVERS - AMOUNT DISPUTED (?)

Robert Marsh (CEO of Ev1servers):

http://forum.ev1servers.net/showthread.php?s=ec6c44446e8b2650e51ec132337d3bf4&am
p;am
p;postid=261665#post261665

I would discount ANY reports or quotes of a 7 figure cash payment as has been
reported.

We did agree to a one time payment, however we did not agree to pay a 7 figure
cash payment as reported in the media.

SCO:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1541140,00.asp

Stowell added, "They didn't pay full retail price on each server, but the
deal was still worth seven figures all together for SCO."


http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0301scoalter.html

The cost of the deal was "in the seven figure range," according to
SCO's Stowell.


http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18201322

Financial details were not disclosed, but an SCO spokesman said the deal was
worth "north of seven figures."

EV1Servers, a division of Everyones Internet, manages more than 20,000 Web
servers, most of which run Linux, Stowell said. The license covers all the
Linux
servers. SCO licenses the use of its code for a starting price of $699 per
server processor. EV1Servers' deal qualified for a volume discount.


http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,108

01,90686,00.html

This is proving to be a week of firsts for SCO. Yesterday, the Lindon, Utah,
company for the first time revealed the name of one of its SCO Intellectual
Property License for Linux licensees (see story). The company, Houston-based
EV1Servers.net, has purchased site licenses from SCO for its two data centers
for an undisclosed seven-figure sum, according to SCO.

http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5167308.html?tag=st_rn

SCO spokesman Blake Stowell declined to say how much EV1Servers.net paid but
said the arrangement covered the "vast majority" of about 20,000
servers, and therefore got a high-volume discount on the $699 per single-CPU
server that SCO asks.


LEGGETT & PLATT - SAYS THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY HAD A LICENSE

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18202021

Separately, another company mentioned as a SCO Linux licensee on Thursday
denied
knowledge of any such agreement. Though SCO's Bench had confirmed Carthage
Missouri's Leggett & Platt Inc. as a licensee on Wednesday, a spokesman for
the manufacturing company said that he had no knowledge of such a deal. "I
have now talked to our people who handle our Linux systems and, at least at a
corporate level, we have not bought such a license from SCO Group," said
John Hale, the company's vice president of human resources. "To their
knowledge they would not have an interest in doing so," he said.

"It's conceivable -- we're a large far-flung corporation -- that some unit
of Leggett & Platt in some part of the country may have been persuaded to
buy such a license, but if they did we are not aware of it," Hale said.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stowell disputes CA position
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:21 AM EST
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18202021

By acquiring the UnixWare licenses, CA indemnified itself against a possible
Linux lawsuit from SCO, said Sam Greenblatt, the senior vice president and
chief
architect of CA's Linux Technology Group. "We did an agreement with the
Canopy Group and in the agreement with the Canopy Group, we acquired UinxWare
licenses," he said. "For every UnixWare license you acquired, you got
indemnified for that number of Linux licenses."

SCO spokesman Blake Stowell disagreed with Greenblatt's characterization saying
that CA had indeed obtained an IP License for Linux. "UnixWare licenses
allow SCO customers to run UnixWare and the SCO Intellectual Property License
allows Linux end users to run our UNIX intellectual property in binary form in
Linux. Today, CA has a license in place to run our Unix IP in binary form in
Linux without fear that they may be infringing on our intellectual
property," he said in an e-mail interview.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Poor Customers
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:25 AM EST
So SCO's customers have a choice: Buy the latest version of SCO's OS and be
smeared as the purchaser of a Linux license (like CA); or migrate away and be
sued (like Chrysler).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: jerryg on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:25 AM EST
What's amazing is that they keep lying and they keep getting caught.

It really makes you wonder when the whole upper management of a company has such
a bizarre understanding of the meaning of truth.

---
Jerry Gaiser
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: whoever57 on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:26 AM EST
Barrenechea claims that SCO has twisted a $40 million breach-of-contract settlement that CA paid last summer to the Canopy Group, SCO’s biggest stockholder, and Center 7, another Canopy company, and has turned it into a purported Linux license.

"As a 'small part' of that settlement, Barrenechea said, CA got a bunch of UnixWare licenses that it needed to support its UnixWare customers.

Piercing the corporate veil anyone? Surely this is very clear evidence that Canopy is in charge and thus when SCO loses, IBM will be able to go after Canopy.

---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at http://scosource.com/index.html

[ 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 | # ]

Vultus swallowed by SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:36 AM EST

Vultus was sold to SCO last year. At the bottom of the
vultus link you will find the name of Marc Moderetzski,
now public relations manger at SCO (quoted in today's
wired article). He's a good man, I enjoyed working with
him and consider him a friend. Even if he is the
information minister for these snakes.

So did Questar buy a new license or were they given one
because they were Vultus' customer?




[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Darl McBride -- I'm selling insurance
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:37 AM EST
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/040304/feature_1.html

Even so, SCO's newest claims will be tough to prove, says Mark Radcliffe, an attorney with tech-focused law firm Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich.

SCO's demands of DaimlerChrysler seem to go beyond the scope of the automaker's Unix licensing terms.

And SCO's case against AutoZone is undermined by serious doubts about what Unix rights it owns, Radcliffe says.

But as McBride himself admits, anything can happen in a court. Linux users should buy $699 Linux licenses just in case.

That's what pushed EV1Servers, one of SCO's first Linux licensees, to pay up. At a press conference announcing the deal, reporters asked chief Robert Marsh whether he'll demand a refund should SCO lose its Linux cases.

McBride jumped in: "You don't call up your auto insurance company and say, 'Hey, I didn't get in a car wreck.'"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Enron parallels
Authored by: tallfred on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:51 AM EST
Whenever I read about inbreeding and commerce between Cannopy companies, I think about the companies Enron set up to cook the books. Can we trust revinue numbers between businesses who are majority owned by the same parent?

Seldom is there only one cockroach.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:20 AM EST
I read somewhere that the CA guys were worried about a "sometimes downright
hostile" linux community if they read this in the wrong light. No worries,
I think everyone here sees the extorsion and lying going on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A bit off topic, but funny none-the-less...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:33 AM EST
Has anyone played the video game or seen the movie Resident Evil? Everytime I
see the name Canopy, I think Umbrella Corporation, which is the diabolical
company behind all the nasty things that go on the video game/movie... Umbrella,
like Canopy, seems to have their hands in everything, and the majority of their
larger money making techniques are underhanded, unethical, and destructive...
Did anyone else see this corelation?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Conopy investments
Authored by: ABM_rulez on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:47 AM EST
I wonder if there is any reliable resource where one can find out which
companies are related to Canopy in one way or the other. If the CA spokesperson
is right one might get the impression that Canopy is cutting its own profits in
favour of SCO. As a potential share holder this would trigger my alarm bell. As
a potential US tax payer, which I am not, I would be surprised how profits can
be shifted from one company to another by means of paying Linux licenses. This
looks to me like reducing the GP for paying SCO for the air that we breeze.
Shouldn't any IRS system be interested in those bussines methods?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says Keeping Track of ALL of the covert agents
Authored by: LionKuntz on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 02:00 AM EST
Keeping Track of ALL of the covert agents:
Related to Flying FUD article of a few days ago...


"Call me crazy," adds Stowell, "but I somehow think that Pamela Jones isn't just a paralegal with nothing better to do with her life than host a Web site called Groklaw that is dedicated to bashing SCO. I think there is a lot more to her background and intentions than she is willing to reveal publicly. I believe that Big Blue looms large behind Pamela Jones."
--LinuxInsider.com, article written by David Halperin

http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32990.html

== =================

A couple other pro-Microsoft LinuxInsider.com articles by Halperin:

So, Why is a LINUX website publishing stories about MICROSOFT products which have never been ported to LINUX???

Linux News: Software: Office Politics 2003, Microsoft Style
SOFTWARE. Office Politics 2003, Microsoft Style. By David Halperin www.TechNewsWorld.com,
Part of the ECT News Network September 12, 2003. ...
http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31571.html - 44k - Mar 4, 2004

...AND, what makes LinuxInsider.com think that Linux users care about "Saving Legacy Systems"

Linux News: Developer: Saving Legacy Systems with Automated ...
http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32846.html

"Fujitsu Australia has teamed with two local companies and has added a couple of its own technologies to offer several options for companies reinventing legacy systems in modern architectures, such as Microsoft's .NET or Sun's Java 2 Enterprise Edition."

Linux is mentioned once in passing, as part of a group:

"...This Fujitsu offering runs additionally under Linux, Unix and Windows...."

============================
So, does google have anything further on this "Linux" expert website?

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8 &oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=+site%3Awww.linuxinsider.com++microsoft&bt nG=Google+Search

Searched pages from www.linuxinsider.com for
microsoft.
Results 1 - 100 of about 6,090.
Search took 0.34 seconds.

-------------------
Here's a real sweetheart kiss-up article:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32394.html
If Microsoft Changed, Would Anyone Notice?
"I'm not expecting Linux or Apple advocates to scream suddenly about how much they now love Microsoft. I don't have access to those kinds of mind-altering drugs. I'm only suggesting that Microsoft seems to be busting its hump to change, and wondering how many users out there will allow themselves to notice.

I spent the middle part of last week at Microsoft headquarters. For the first time in a long while, I saw an energy that few firms I've covered or worked for have been able to match. It struck me that most of the folks who disagree with my perspective about Microsoft are thinking of the company the way it was about five years ago, which isn't accurate. A five-year-old viewpoint wouldn't accurately characterize Apple, HP, Dell or SCO either.

So what if Microsoft changed for the better? Would you care?

...It also occurred to me that if we want companies to change, we should spend as much time patting them on the back when they do what we ask as we do kicking them in the butt when they don't. "

-------------------
http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32592.html< BR> "Microsoft To Offer Free Unix-Windows Integration Tool
Services for Unix 3.5 provides the tools and sub-systems to integrate Unix or Linux with the Windows platform. It also allows users to support the migration of Unix applications to Windows. "Free is a smart strategy," says Laura DiDio, an analyst with the Yankee Group. "


-------------------
Linux is mentioned once in passing as part of a group:

http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32040.html
Linux News: Viewpoint:
"Software Insecurity - Don't Blame Microsoft
Reporters and analysts covering the technology industry have one thing right: The insecurities that lurk within software represent a legitimate threat to commerce and potentially even national security.

But it's time to stop blaming Microsoft. ..."

"... and Linux servers, the mainframes, the PDAs, the computer-controlled manufacturing equipment? Last time I looked, most CAT scanners weren't run by Microsoft, ..."

-------------------
Linux isn't mentioned once in this puff piece for Microsoft and Disney monopolists dealing:

http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32802.html
"Microsoft, Disney Forge Digital Content Deal
Microsoft vice president Will Poole said the agreement with Disney will speed content delivery to Windows-based devices, such as Windows XP Media Center PCs, high-definition televisions and still-to-come portable media players."

-------------------
Not one mention of Linux in this article:

http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32695.html
Microsoft Files for XML Patents
"We were surprised, and I wouldn't say we were happy when we read that Microsoft was applying for patents in Europe and New Zealand," said Richard Carriere, director of office productivity products at Ottawa-based Corel, which makes the WordPerfect office suite.


-------------------
http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32976.h tml
"What If Microsoft Got Security Right?
I'm not even going to suggest that Linux is less secure, but if the exposure is people and people are gullible, then security at a product level might only make you feel more secure. You might not actually be more secure. So, as far as I can tell, Microsoft is the only large firm really dealing with behavioral issues.

Last week at the RSA conference in soggy California, Microsoft presented the most comprehensive plan I've ever seen to address a security problem. Granted, they currently have massive exposure, but it caused me to wonder what would happen if everyone followed their lead and focused on the human aspects of the problem rather than just the technical.

From the Linux folks out there, I can hear the resounding "No" with regard to following Microsoft's lead in anything, but for those who at least think they have an open mind, let's explore this idea. "
-------------------

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 02:17 AM EST
Does anyone have additional information regarding Questar's license? As a
public service governed-utility, I wonder if they can use customer's funds in
such a reckless way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Research Canopy Group
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 02:34 AM EST
It would be interesting to see who are in the Canopy group and the amount of
lawsuits or other "odd" behaviour they share.
There might be some more interesting activities that further undermine their
corporate veil.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Presidential Pardon
Authored by: dodger on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 03:21 AM EST
PJ: I am proposing that Linux get a Presidential Pardon.

I know that this by-passes the legal system. But as a pragmatist, I don't want
this to drag on and on. I want closure. I want to get on with my business.

Microsoft has been screwing around for many years. Our legal system seems to be
slow and inept in dealing with them. I was visiting the 'Microsoft Museum' in
Redmond in 1994 and I saw a slick 30 minute video about how there were
allegations that microsoft was a monopoly, but so was AT&T and the
department of justice was unable to bring them down in the first 85 lawsuits.
The message was that the department of justice was inept and therefore,
Microsoft was safe.

10 years is a long time....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Declaratory Judgement ? [Q for PJ?]
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 04:13 AM EST
CA are clearly angry about being used as cannon-fodder by SCO. They've
apparently said that don't have enough SCO "licenses" for all their
Linux systems.

Could they request a declaratory judgement that SCO didn't intend to sue them?
This would show clearly CA's commitment to Linux, as well as involving SCO in
another expensive and unwinnable lawsuit.

In the same vein, perhaps BoA could also seek a declaratory judgement.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: First Post and Default Threads
Authored by: grouch on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 04:46 AM EST
I don't know who the Anonymous reader is who created that first post for URLs and Updates, but it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Please rush to make such a first post. PJ tried doing that before, even with everything else she has to do, and it came out halfway down the page. The intention of PJ is therefore clear.

When I emailed PJ about nealyw illy's suggestion, she suggested I try making these threads:

  1. subject: URLs and Updates
    comment: Please post URLs and updates to the current story as replies to this message.
  2. subject: Errata (typos and corrections)
    comment: Please post any mistakes you find and corrections to the current story as replies to this message.
  3. subject: Transcriptions (only when appropriate for the story posted)
    comment: Please post any transcriptions or volunteer to transcribe (include details) as replies to this message.

Naturally, you don't have to remember those word for word. Just so long as the subject and what to do is clear to all.

One person is unlikely to be able to get these posted for each story, each time, with the current setup. But if there is a cooperative, volunteer policy of making first posts that set up these threads, it should work out.

A possible problem in doing it this way is having several threads started with the same subject near the top of the comments section. That will probably not be a serious problem. I don't see it being more trouble than what happens now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Money For Nothing...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 04:53 AM EST
So, do I have this right?

From the $50,000,000 from Baystar:

1) $10,000,000 go to Boies Link and 10% of that ($1,000,000) goes to Kevin McBride via Angelo, Barry & Boldt, P.A. Link

2) 2% ($1,000,000) goes to Kimble Jenkins over at Morgan Keegan Link
< br> 3) and now we find out 2% ($1,000,000) goes to Mike Anderer over at S2 Strategic Consulting

Did I miss any? And then do the same breakdown for the Microsoft and Sun "licenses".

I wish I knew someone at The New SCO...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: leguirerj on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 05:06 AM EST
Could Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen, or Bill Gates contributing out of their own
pockets be considered that same as Microsoft?
Or would Microsoft, the company be off the hook if indivuduals contributed to
BayStar?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: Mark Levitt on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 05:26 AM EST
When does this become securities fraud?

A totally seperate company settles a lawsuit, and buys some software as part of
that settlement.

SCO, who aren't part of the settlement, tells investors that part of that money
is for their "Linux license" business, when actually it was for a
totally different product.

I'm sorry, but are the SEC simply asleep, or does Dick Cheney just have them all
locked in a closet?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Register reports Sontag; Raymond
Authored by: alextangent on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 07:02 AM EST
here and here

--
An interested bystander

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Raimondi hussles to beat the clock
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 07:16 AM EST
Only three more 11K dumps and then SCO director Thomas Raimondi is fully cashed out! Soon, another SCO exec will cross the finish line! Way to go, Thomas! If only you could milk your own company as hard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 08:10 AM EST
"Meanwhile, Microsoft said 'the allegations in the posting are not
accurate'."

-- Interesting that they address only ESR's comments ('the allegations') in this
carefully worded denial. Not a peep about the truthfulness of Anderer's
statements.

How long before Mr Anderer breaks his silence? After he finds a good lawyer,
perhaps? [insert Boies joke here]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Backlash in the cooking
Authored by: PolR on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 08:53 AM EST
If this sample is of any indication, executives already understand SCOG is a
bunch of rabid fools. The next step is when they will actually believe SCOG are
actually doing the dirty jobs of somebody else. If this happen, they will care
intensely because they are personally threatened.

How long before they get there? This leaked memo is a step in this direction.
SCO admits its authenticity. Crafty denial won't help much. Executives cannot
reach their position without learning to tell a foul game when they see one.
They all know they cannot continue to do business safely if silly lawsuits like
this are allowed to spring all over the place forever.

I feel something is about to snap. If executives gang up to demand the problem
to be fixed, law enforcement authorities will have no choice but to act. No
amount of lobbying and campaign contributions can save Microsoft from this kind
of backlash.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question about date
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 08:56 AM EST
That's great that a company can publicly display such revolt to be associated
with SCO.

I did have a legal question I think Pamela Jones could cover that I think is a
little interesting to me.

A remember a long time ago hearing stories about companies like Xerox and
Thermos losing their ability to sue companies for patent infringement because
they let the companies for a certain amount of time.

So if the kernel of Linux 2.4 came out in Jan 2001 how long did SCO know about
the "code infringement"? And if was close to Jan 2001 more than three
years ago would that be similar to the Xerox and Linux issue since they chose
not to pursue it until they decided it was a valuable lawsuit?

strattonbrazil@hotmail.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

We don't want to go there
Authored by: PolR on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 09:00 AM EST
To get a pardon, one has to be wrong in the first place. To ask for a pardon, it
is to admit being wrong. That will cause FUD forever.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 09:02 AM EST
"You know what I just realized? I believe this memo means
that IBM can subpoena Microsoft and ask for their email
and documents .... ah! Whoever you are, whistleblower, we
salute you!"

This would be an unbelievable irony in all of this. Hard
to believe it has happenned, but things just got very
interesting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What if SCO was playing a CON game?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 09:31 AM EST
I thought about this a long time ago when SCO started making threats against
linux. You can't ignore the fact that Ray Norda despised Microsoft for the way
they Monopolized the Software industry in such a way that they were unwilling to
leave anything on the table for others. Microsofts Goal was to Control the
entire industry in a way that they Could provide crappy engineered products and
then use the ignorant public to tolerate the crap until they could work the bugs
out. Now most companies, Novell included were not willing to treat the public
as guinea pigs because reputation was more important. Unfortunately, microsoft
with its generous package discounts to computer manufacturers were able to foist
this on the public...and so on. Well, if this Whole thing does come down and
microsoft is brought Down with it then I Say Ray Noorda has gotten his sweet
revenge. And microsoft Greed was what made it possible!!!! Ok, well perhaps it
isn't true, but either way! this whole drama is going to go down in history one
way or the other

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOG Has Failed To Sued Anyone For Using Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 09:38 AM EST
SCOG cannot sue anyone for using Linux because it would be thrown out.
Plus, there are funds to help any SCOG victims.

SCOG spreads FUD wide and deep because they have no competitive products
or services for sale in the marketplace.

Past and present customers of SCOG are at more risk because they have
signed proprietary software licenses and used technical support in the past.

This is truly a good time to be any part of Open Source, as a user, developer,
marketer, executive, or educator. This is the time for the maturing of OSS as
a mainstream business model.

When old, entrenched worldviews die, their supporters fight with all their
power to prevent change. In spite of the risks and the FUD, SCOG is losing in
such a big spectacle that they are damaging M$ and Canopy and the
proprietary software business model.

The truth is that the good people of this Earth want them to disappear back
into their hiding places.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oops SCO....
Authored by: pooky on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 10:12 AM EST
Here's the problem SCO will have with CA. SCO made a big deal about someone
large buying a license. To the Linux community, that was supposed to validate
that someone thinks they need the license. To the financial community however,
that meant that SCO gained some income from SCOSource, and since it was a
fortune 500 company, everyone probably assumed the license was significant.

So who has bought a license. In other words, where does the wrath of the Linux
community get pointed?

Microsoft: Admits they took a license, denies they are funding SCO, says they
did it to protect their customers and ensure interpoerability, yada yada
yada...

Sun: Doesn't say much at all but we know publicly they bought some kind of
license SCO is claiming as SCOSource revenue.

CA: Denies they bought a license, says it was part of the court settlement.
Didn't pay SCO anything for an IP license. Says SCO's claims are bogus.

Questar: Says they took a really small license, $5K, because it was easier to
just pay the minor fee and make the annoyance go away. Says they wouldn't sign
agreement though because it would validate SCO's claims, which they don't agree
with.

Legitt: Says they didn't buy a corporate license, and don't agree with SCO's
claims, but some small division somewhere might have purchased one. Seems to
hint that anything a small division bought would be a small license.

EV1Servers.net: Admints they bought a license, says they paid a small fee, did
it to protect their customers. SCO claims it's a major license, maybe 7 figures
(doesn't sound small to me). EV1Servers also got a monster, too good to be true
licensing deal from Microsoft for windows web hosting right before the SCO deal.
Maybe EV1 had help paying SCO?

Do we know of any other licensees? I mean SCO's spent millions and outside of
Microsoft and Sun, there's only two companies that will admit they bought
anything from SCO. Two companies out of how many tens of thousands of Linux
using businesses?

If I were watching their stock (and I am because I like good entertainment),
revelations like Legitts, Questars, and CA's would concern me that the veil of
legitimacy of their IP licensing is rapidly going down in flames. Every company
so far has either said they didn't buy the license SCO claims they sold, or said
it was a minor purchase or a small fee.

Doesn't exactly scream that they are raking in millions to make up for the
millions they are spending, does it?

-pooky

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 10:16 AM EST
So it looks to me like SCO should release the names of all of their supposed
Linux "licensees", so that all of them can disclaim any such thing.
Possibly
discovery in the IBM case will yield this list?

---
Jim

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: Alex on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 10:18 AM EST

I noticed that Legget & Platt and CA are not mentioned anywhere in SCO's 8K.
Does this mean they know they're lying about these companies buying licenses?

On the other hand, if I'd bought a SCO license, I wouldn't admit it either.

Alex

---
Hey Darl!! Did Ross Perot draw your chart?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

There is something that smells bad.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 10:24 AM EST
SCO nows that if indeed there is code they own in the linux kernel , the amount
of code would represent a very small fraction of the total code of it. What
really intriges me, is that with the prices they are charging per machine, it
looks that they don't want to attract customers but instead to scare them to buy
another vendor's operating systems licenses... maybe M$. Even, the policies of
suing linux users is a PR suicide... It looks that someone is pulling the
strings....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates Bought a License according to SCOG
Authored by: Waterman on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 10:25 AM EST
or at least they told IBM that in Exhibit 3 of IBM's Report on SCO's Compliance. Now it is part of the Court record and if CA is right, then it is a case of SCOG speaking out of the side of their mouth.

"(1) “The Linux intellectual property licenses SCO has publicly claimed it has sold to at least ten companies.”" At this juncture, I am only aware of a license with Computer Associates, Questar and Leggett & Platt. The Computer Associates document was collected and approved for production, but the third party vendor being used for this document production did not burn the image on a CD. We, of course, will produce this document. The remaining documents were received by the client well after the collection of documents took place and therefore was not included in the production. We will produce this document as well."

From the bottom of the document:
"Very truly yours,

[signature]
Mark J. Heise"

First company to produce the document that they signed will most likely be CA if they did not buy a "Linux License". :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

You can lose all your rights.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 10:46 AM EST
IANAL - first but some good knowledge about trademark, copyrights, and
patents...

You can lose all, each been under differing terms.
One primary one is that you have to enforce your IP with everyone infringing. If
you are selective in your enforement you may very well lose your rights.

If you continue to let others infringe for long periods of time before
enforement you can lose you right. But most claim that they "just found
out" so not a very good one.

On the copyright issue. One that worries me alot. In order to bring claim you
works must have been registered with the US copyright office. Which is why both
SCO and Novell filed for copyright reg. with the US. By law this must be done.
Most of the linux OS has probably NOT been filed with the copyright office,
which leaves a GREAT BIG GAPPING HOLE in claiming infrigement or ownership of
GPL works. YOUR copyrights are null and void if not followed to the letter of
the law.

GPL gives some protections because it is a contract, must like the EULA from
most other software companies, but there is this big problems about ownership.
If you were to bring an infingement case without the proper US copyright
registrations YOU WILL MOST LIKELY LOSE IN COURT, and MOST LIKELY LOSE YOUR
COPYRIGHTS.

I have seen and read many a cases about this. This is a very extensive subject
and could write many, many pages about it. Your best bet to get an understanding
of each is to go to the US copyright office (lib of congress), USPTO websites
and read about the rules that your are required to follow for registering your
works and bringing enforement claims.

Seems really unfair that the honest ones have to follow all these rules while
other make up the rules as the go because they've got deep pockets.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

"[..] direct or indirect
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 10:59 AM EST
financial relationship [..]"
Sounds kinda weasely to me. Adding a superfluous adjective like 'financial' to that sentence reeks of sophistry. Perhaps their relationship could be described another way, as they didn't deny having a relationship - just that it was 'financial'.
Maybe when Billzilla gets drawn into it, the sublety and sophistication level of weasel talk and PR goes up - although previous PR efforts by MS (including the latest commisioned 'analysis' and inane Get the Facts campaign) don't seem to support that theory.
At any rate, although the world would be a better place without FUD, at least we may now encounter FUD that's a little more challenging. The Enderle/Lyons gang was starting to get pretty dull - their 2 watt prevarications just sort of became akin to an annoying sibling trying to get attention - you could react to it without skipping a beat or needing to even engage your brain
In fact, it will be interesting to see the contortions they go through to try and maintain a scintilla of credibility after the smoke clears and their masters abandon them. Has DiDio had a change of heart, or is she just doing damage control now that the obvious has penetrated even her fact resistant cranium? I won't tell you what I think, but I'm sure you could hazard a guess.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • direct or indirect - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:38 PM EST
  • Billzilla - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 09:49 PM EST
OT - Open Source Victory Dance
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 11:37 AM EST
http://www.angelfire.com/pe/penguindance/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Beeb latest article refers to CA etc
Authored by: jmc on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 11:49 AM EST

Hope I'm note repeating anyone - Beeb article here

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now we know why.....
Authored by: sam on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:19 PM EST
Now we know why IBM has been in no hurry to seek dismissal. There are bigger
fish to fry. Those guys are really good.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOx IP License? . .. ... ..... .......troll
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:26 PM EST
So SCOx has sold/given away some of their IP Licenses. IANAL so my question is
what conditions would have to exist for a SCOx IP licensee to be violation of
SCOx IP License, where SCOx or it's Canopy successor could take legal action
(sue) a current holder of said license?

So could Canopy/SCOx say you bought for example 10 SCOx IP licenses on LINUX but
(5-10 years later) now you have been running 30 Linux machines so we want 1
million dollars for each non SCOx IP Licensed box.

Are they setting themselves up to sue their new SCOSource Clients?

an other one from under the bridge

I realize I'm only the help here but I don't do Windows!

[ Reply to This | # ]

This explains the lawsuits against AZ and D-C
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:39 PM EST
This explains the lawsuits against AutoZone and Daimler-Chrysler..

SCO files
suit against them, offers to settle for pocket change, makes them sign an NDA,
then claims they have two more Fortune 500 'licensees'.

Which makes stock
analysts think they must have something, which increases their stock price.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hatch . .. ... ..... ....... troll
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:50 PM EST
Anyone know how much money the Noorda Family Trust, Canopy, any of it's
companies or their company execs have donated to Orin "The Horrible"
Hatch's past, present or future re-election fund?

another one from under the bridge

I realize I'm only the help here but I don't do Windows!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Making customers by suing customers
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:40 PM EST
Interesting statement on CRN:
However, Philip Albert, a partner at Townsend and Townsend and Crew, San Francisco, said SCO's lawsuits against end users will backfire. "If SCO starts asserting contractual claims based on licenses, no one is going to want to take a license," Albert said.

What he merely says is that signing up a license with SCO may prevent a lawsuit from SCO about the use of their IP, but it won't prevent a lawsuit from SCO about the license you just signed.

H@ns

Also Questar admitted they paid the full price for 7 servers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ev1servers - SCO breached our agreement - ALREADY
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:48 PM EST
http://thewhir.com/marketwatch/ev1030504.cfm

Along with the PR backlash, Marsh said he is also disappointed that SCO
officials have spoken to media outlets about the financial terms of the contract
between SCO and EV1.

"Any report that we made a cash payment of seven figures is highly
exaggerated, and it disappoints me that that quote is out there in the
media," Marsh said. "The contract that we signed with SCO specifically
prohibits any party from discussing the economics of the transaction. If you
have an agreement that calls for certain aspects to be protected, then you would
hope that that would be respected."

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT-SCOX pump sprung a leak?
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:59 PM EST
Looking at the SCOX chart, it looks like there have been repeated attempts to
pump SCO's stock today. A lot of clusters of 10, 15 thousand share
transactions and even one nearly 20 thousand, each accompanied by a big spike,
then it drops right back down where it was before. In previous weeks even a
4000 share transaction would cause a somewhat sustained boost, but not today.
Any ideas?

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nice summary by Need To Know
Authored by: JeR on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 02:19 PM EST
At Need To Know the events of the last few days are summed up quite nicely. Have Fun!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Helping Open Source
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 02:32 PM EST
SCO is doing the open source community a favor and is demonstrating the viral
nature of proprietary software:
"SCO has never claimed to own all additions to or versions of UNIX that
were ever made by companies that licensed UNIX source code or that the IBM
developed file system for AIX now belongs to SCO. SCO has publicly stated that
while certain products and additions are owned by the respective UNIX licensee,
SCO retained rights (as written in the UNIX software sub-licensing agreements)
as to how these products are distributed or used, including confidentiality
restrictions."
http://sco.com/company/presskit/corrections/code_ownership.html

I thought that was nice of SCO just to make it perfectly clear that if you write
any software, you'd better not have anything to do with proprietary software
unless you want to get sued and have proprietary software companies claim rights
over your own work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shakespear and SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 02:49 PM EST
There is a famous quote from Shakespear.. (sp?) which I don't know exactly but
the revised version would go something like this:

SCO is a tale spun by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Im gonna logon and make that my sig...

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Stock
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 02:59 PM EST
Interesting stock behoavior today. Seemed to do a bit of a dance when SCO's 8-K
was issued. However, I'm more curious as to what happened at 10:30 AM. Stock
took a pronounced dip, alongside a huge spike of activity. Someone perhaps
bailing?


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

[ Reply to This | # ]

USA Today SCO article
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 03:22 PM EST
"IBM, SCO ordered to produce documentation in Linux war"

seems to be a very harsh stance on SCO. maybe things are starting to look up now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 03:22 PM EST
And by the way I am only 12 so thanks for the compliment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Hunch: Microsoft Innocent
Authored by: John Goodwin on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 03:24 PM EST

Just because there was a conspiracy doesn't mean it was a *Microsoft*
conspiracy. See my "VOD Conspiracy" post on the previous thread.

My guess is that some people conspired together to present a juicy IP domination
scheme to Microsoft, based on VOD patents and control of Linux, and a "you
can't loose so give us some money" pitch, with the goal of parting MS of
100 million of its well known dollars or so, but that MS didn't bite.

MS undoubtably *is* conspiring to take over the world (as is Linus), and those
plans *must* involve VOD, DRM, and we may learn some juicy details, but more
likely we will not.

Conspiracies are like that. There are people who have a motive for such a
conspiracy to exist, with MS as the money bags, and are quite willing to make it
so for a price--and not everyone who starts such conspiracies is Microsoft.
Microsoft would not be the first powerful corporation to say "who will give
me the media" and have willing minions respond enthusiatically with plots.
They probably get one or two proposals a day, offering the world on a platter.

The question is, did SCO, IPXONLINE, and Silicon StemCell/S2 Partners offer them
the world on a platter, and what was the offer, exactly?

So who knows? Maybe MS was street smart this time, maybe they are up to the
elbows in crudescence with this. We need evidence before we convict. :)

My personal guess: MS was happy to pay 10 million for FUD, but balked at 100
million for the Linux settop box scheme.

So: is it more than a theory? Were SCO and friends up to a VOD takeover plot?
What did MS know, and when did they know it? And did they bite, or not?


[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Martha Stewart
Authored by: lnx4me on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 03:32 PM EST
Any thoughts on whether the Martha Stewart convictions might set a tone for
dealing with SCO?

Granted, no one has testified under oath, yet....

Just a thought

Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Question
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 03:58 PM EST
Suppose (as seems likely) that SCO runs out of money to pay its lawyers before
the various suits it is involved in are over.

What happens then? Does it just surrender in all the suits? Get assigned a
public defender (some fellow who has spent his career defending poor people
against eviction notices and repossession claims)? Does the judge stop
everything and render a summary judgement on the evidence so far?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl quote from IBD
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 08:34 PM EST

Here's a quote from Darl McBride from Investors Business Daily:

But as McBride himself admits, anything can happen in a court. Linux users should buy $699 Linux licenses just in case.

That's what pushed EV1Servers, one of SCO's first Linux licensees, to pay up. At a press conference announcing the deal, reporters asked chief Robert Marsh whether he'll demand a refund should SCO lose its Linux cases.

McBridge jumped in: "You don't call up your auto insurance company and say, 'Hey, I didn't get in a car wreck.'"

So, McBridge is characterising their SCOSource licenses as "insurance" - against being sued by SCO?

Better buy a license now guys, just in case we're wrong!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 06:00 AM EST
"EV1's decision to pay the licensing fee was made after the Houston-based
ISP and Web hosting company was led to believe by the SCO Group that lawsuits
were imminent and that targets would be large well-known companies.

"They were overdue for their lawsuits," Marsh said. "We had
largely ignored the issue in the beginning, and at some point we got on their
radar screen from some perspective and that's when we became a target like some
of the other companies

"So we felt like we were doing the right thing for customers, the right
thing for ourselves and the right thing for our shareholders. We felt (that
paying the licensing fee) put our customers and ourselves in a position where we
could concentrate on our business instead of a bunch of lawsuits.""

It appears to me that George Marsh is confessing that he did not do his homework
on the controversy and basically ignored the whole thing - a position that you
gentle readers will easily recognize as the standard head in the sand, butt
pointed skyward position. So when George Marsch learns that his company was
being targeted, he makes a panic, spur-of-the-moment decision to buy the
licenses which he subsequently tries to sell to the public as a "business
decision". At this point in time, George Marsh and the SCO Group differ on
the money involved in the contract and the terms of the contract - and George
Marsh is miffed that the SCO Group made the contract public in violation of the
confidentiality terms, thus resulting a PR disaster with potentially serious
financial consequences for EV1. In other words, George Marsh is your typical,
satisfied SCO Group business partner.

Someone needs to slam a dunce cap on George Marsh's head. EV1's Board of
Directors will have to decide for themselves whether George Marsh is qualified
to continue as the CEO of EV1 - I think the rest of us have drawn our
conclusions from this little piece of performance art.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Computer Associates' VP Says CA Did Not Exactly Buy a SCO License
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 06:19 AM EST
CA is a major player in the commercial applications space. CA needs the ability
to customize Linux to meet customer requirements or the requirements of its own
commercial applications, if necessary. The freedom of the GPL is simply
mission-critical to CA's business: for CA to agree to the restrictions of the
SCO Group "license" while its competitors are bound only by the GPL is
simply suicidal.

CA's denial that it bought the IP "licenses" is critical, because CA
is implicitly denying that it is bound by the terms of the SCO Group's
"license". At this point, freedom is worth a lot more than money to
CA: it is probably only a matter of time before CA and the SCO Group end up
duking it out in court, unless the SCO Group simply takes the money and runs.

[ Reply to This | # ]

FYI Heres is a Yahoo list about where you can trade SCO in Germany
Authored by: ABM_rulez on Saturday, March 06 2004 @ 06:27 AM EST
http://tinyurl.com/2x4nl

Therefore I guess that there should be one stock market in Canada at least where
one can get SCO. And the Canadian 'SEC' could be interested in keeping the stock
market clean. It's just a guess.

[ 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 )