|
|
| SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript |
 |
|
Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:18 AM EST
|
Here is our transcript of SCO's March 3, 2004 teleconference with Darl McBride, Robert Bench and Mark Heise. There are a number of hints about "third-party websites" allegedly presenting IBM's side. I believe they mean Groklaw, because yesterday SCO again tried to make a connection between IBM and Groklaw, telling Bob Mims of The Salt Lake Tribune that IBM had "leaked" a letter which allegedly was posted "anonymously" to Groklaw. Today, Mims has corrected that false information. I can tell you truthfully that IBM has never leaked any information to Groklaw. SCO may prefer secrecy, but I believe the public has a proper interest in this case, because the outcome will affect more than just the parties. For one thing, authors of the kernel code, which can be distributed only under the GPL, have a need and, I think, a right to know who takes a potentially conflicting SCO "IP" license. I fail to see how anyone can properly assert a "right" to "confidentiality" if the goal or the result is to hide violations of the license rights of others.
I suspect that SCO may be working up to asking the judge to make Groklaw stop covering the case or to restrict our coverage. That may be why they keep insisting, falsely, that Groklaw is sponsored by IBM. Their overzealous supporter, who calls himself "ledite" on the Yahoo Finance board, wrote in his recent message threatening my person that it was "just a matter of time" before the judge shut Groklaw down. If he is a SCO insider, as some on the Yahoo board have conjectured based on his past record of predictions, then SCO may attempt this. Time will tell. I have marked the transcript in blue, wherever there seemed to be particularly significant information. This is not an official transcript. While we try to be as accurate as we can be, for anything that matters to you, go by the video SCO makes available on its website. As always, if you note any errors, kindly let us know, so we can correct.
*****************************************************************
Darl McBride:
Thank you for joining us on our call here today. As we begin our 2004 fiscal
year, I'd like to start off by taking a look at how the SCO Group has evolved
since I became CEO a little over 18 months ago. Upon joining the company, one of my first decisions was to identify the
strengths and the core assets of the company. This quickly resulted in a renewed
focus on our UNIX intellectual property and a return to the recognized SCO UNIX
brand.
Since that time we've been successful in re-establishing SCO in the
marketplace as the owner of the UNIX operating system and as a leading provider
of UNIX-based technology and solutions.
During 2003 we worked to improve and to strengthen SCO's financial foundation.
As a result of our efforts, the company's cash position has increased from $6.6
million to $68.5 million during the past year. We've remained debt-free, and the
Company reported net income and generated positive cash from operations for the
first time in SCO's history last fiscal year.
Looking at 2004, we're committed to building on our stable foundation, taking
advantage of the strength of our intellectual property assets, loyal UNIX
customer installed base, and longtime partners and customers, delivering a
powerful business model for the future. As we implement our longer-term
strategic plan for 2004 and beyond, the management team at SCO continues to
place emphasis on meeting near-term quarterly objectives.
Accordingly, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 our revenue and
operating results came in as we had expected, and are in line with the
guidance we had previously provided.
During this call I will ask Bob, our CFO,
to review our first-quarter results in more detail. Following his comments, I
will highlight recent activities and review the progress we're making in
connection with achieving our longer-term objectives. Bob?
Robert Bench:
Thanks Darl. Our first-quarter revenue was $11.4 million, primarily attributed
to our UNIX products and services. Revenue from our SCOsource division relating
to compliance licenses was $20,000. Our SCOsource initiatives are continuing as
planned, and we expect SCOsource related revenue will gain traction this quarter
and continue to increase momentum in future quarters.
As we've indicated in
prior calls, the nature of the SCOsource revenue makes it difficult to predict
the timing and level of revenue in the near term or in any given quarter.
The breakdown by geography of our UNIX products and services revenue for the
first quarter was 59% from the Americas, 32% from EMEA, and 9% from Asia. It appears to us, based on our customer orders and economic
reports, that IT spending is beginning to increase in the Americas and
stabilizing in Europe and Asia.
As in previous quarters, we're continuing to classify legal and professional
fees and other costs and expenses that relate directly to the enforcement of our
intellectual property rights as a cost of revenue. Even though cost and expenses
may exceed associated revenue in any given quarter, we anticipate these efforts
will result in license fees during our 2004 fiscal year, and that this
presentation will reflect the economic effectiveness of our IP revenue
initiatives.
For the first quarter of 2004 these costs were $3.4 million and were in line
with our expectations. We expect that these costs and expenses relating to the
enforcement of our intellectual property rights will remain at similar levels
for the next several quarters.
The gross margin for the products and services in our UNIX division was $9.2
million or 81%, consistent with the gross margin generated from these
product lines in prior quarters. We expect these percentage trends to continue
and be consistent in future quarters.
Operating costs and expenses for our UNIX division for the first quarter of
fiscal 2004 were $10.9 million and continued to trend down as expected and were
10 percent lower than the operating expenses of $12.1 million incurred in the
prior quarter.
Our general and administrative expense costs of $2.2 million for this first
quarter of fiscal 2004 were higher than those costs of $1.7 million last quarter.
This is comparable to the prior period, and primarily related to the increase in
legal and professional fees as a result of increased compliance and corporate
governance this past quarter.
We expect to continue to gain efficiencies in our worldwide operations, and
therefore project our ongoing operating expenses for the UNIX division will
continue to decrease in future quarters.
As the company had previously announced, we're accounting for the conversion
feature included in our Series A convertible preferred stock financing as a
derivative financial instrument, which requires us to determine its fair value
at the end of each quarter. The decrease in the derivative valuation for the
first quarter of 2004 was $3.6 million and is included as other income.
On February 5, 2004 we exchanged our Series A preferred stock for Series A-1
preferred stock. As a result of the exchange, we eliminated the derivative
financial instrument. Subsequent to February 5th we will no longer report a
charge with a change in fair value of the derivative. Any difference between the
fair value of the new Series A-1 preferred stock and the carrying value of the
Series A preferred stock and related derivative will be recorded as a dividend
in our income statement for the second quarter ending April 30, 2004. This
dividend may be material and increase loss (ph) to net common shareholders for
our April 30th quarter. This dividend will not affect our cash balance or our
operating margins, and will decrease our current liabilities.
Looking forward to our second quarter, consolidated revenue is expected to be
in the range of $10 to $14 million. Revenue from our SCOsource initiatives is
expected to increase in the next several quarters. However, the nature and
predictability of SCOsource revenue is continuing to prove difficult. The
company's cash and working capital position, coupled with the fact that we have
no longterm debt, places the company in a very strong financial position to
pursue our strategic goals for fiscal 2004. With that, I will turn it back to you, Darl.
McBride:
I'd like to spend the remainder of the call before we go to Q & A and focus on
several major initiatives that are designed to really drive revenue and build
shareholder value during 2004 and beyond.
Although many people's perception of SCO is dominated by our SCOsource-related
activities, I want to take a moment or two here to underscore the value and
importance of our UNIX operating business, its people, its products, and its
services. Not only does SCO own Unix System V, I'm proud to say we have the best
UNIX on Intel engineering talent in the industry. A number of our senior
engineers have well over 25 years' experience in the software industry, and in
many cases their careers go back to include time at AT&T Bell Labs. We are proud
of our vibrant, engaged ISV and retailer channels. These relationships represent
many years of working together to serve the needs of corporate customers who
want reliable software at affordable prices. We're also proud of SCO's
technological support teams who year in and year out continue to garner best in
class accolades from industry organizations. And we're proud of our loyal
customer base, end users who span numerous industry verticals who have come to
rely on SCO software to run their businesses.
The foundation of our business is built upon UNIX-related intellectual
property, people, products, and services. During our first quarter, we continued
to see the value of these UNIX operating assets with UNIX product wins with
notable customers such as Kroger, McDonald's, Rent-a-Center, CitiFinancial,
Telecom Italia, and Japan Family Mart [inaudible] value
from these UNIX-based assets. We're committed to addressing the ongoing customer
demands for interoperability in heterogeneous environments and access to
Web-enabled application servers. We reiterate our commitment to the future
development of our UNIX OS products and are anticipating the release of SCO
Legend and our 64-bit product during 2004 or early 2005, as we have discussed on
prior calls. And we will continue to make the changes necessary to increase
operating efficiencies designed to create positive cash flow in this division
for the remainder of 2004.
Now, turning our attention to SCOsource, for over a year we've maintained that
SCO has strong and deep intellectual property rights in UNIX. We have been
engaged in an ongoing effort to educate and inform end users of the rights we
hold, which include broad contract rights as well as extensive rights under US
and international copyright laws. Beginning today, with our actions over the
last few hours, we're now moving to enforce these contract rights and copyrights
through legal action against end users who have chosen to ignore SCO's position.
SCO will be enforcing its legal rights in the US and around the globe.
First, regarding SCO's contract rights, early today, in fact, as we speak
here, SCO is in the process of filing a lawsuit in Oakland County Circuit
Court in the state of Michigan against DaimlerChrysler Corporation.
DaimlerChrysler is one of several thousand companies that have a source code
and/or source reference license agreement with SCO. These agreements, such as
the one with DaimlerChrysler, describe the terms under which the licensee may
use UNIX System V, as well as the derivative works of UNIX System V, which
include certain other flavors of UNIX, as well as Linux.
Beginning in December of last year, SCO notified thousands of these licensees of
their obligations under these agreements. Some companies responded appropriately
and certified their compliance with the terms of the agreement. Some companies,
including DaimlerChrysler, have failed to respond appropriately. As we've
previously noted, SCO's Unix System V source code license agreements serve as
the legal foundation upon which much of the industry's enterprise UNIX operating
systems are licensed. These UNIX licensees include some of the largest companies
in the pharmaceutical, financial services, transportation, energy, automotive,
computer hardware and software industries. These UNIX licensees include
approximately one-third of the Fortune 100.
Second, regarding SCO's copyrights, yesterday afternoon SCO filed suit in
Federal District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada against AutoZone. I invite you to
read a copy of the complaint for full details, but in essence our complaint
alleges that AutoZone as a business enterprise running Linux is infringing SCO's
copyright. Our copyright claims relate to core operating system functionality of
essential root structure and sequence of UNIX System V that was used in the
design of Linux in the categories defined in our complaint. Use of copyrighted
material without permission is prohibited under copyright law and can carry
significant monetary damages. I reference these actions as elements of SCO's enforcement initiatives and to
underscore SCO's commitment to vigorously protect and enforce our intellectual
property, our System V code, our contract rights, and our copyrights. With
representation of Boies, Schiller & Flexner and their associated firms, we have
now taken the significant next step in the process of enforcing our contract
rights and copyrights through legal action against end users.
We believe that there are important similarities between our recently legal
actions against end users and those actions that have taken place in the
recording industry. It wasn't until RIAA ultimately launched a series of
lawsuits against end user copyright violators that the community-at-large became
fully educated regarding the liabilities associated with using copyrighted
materials without providing remuneration to the copyright owner. We believe that
the legal actions we have taken and will continue to take will have a similar
impact on end users of UNIX and Linux. We anticipate that there are many
end users who have not considered the ramifications of the unlicensed use of SCO
copyrighted technology and that an increasing number of companies will now take
appropriate action to license SCO's intellectual property.
On Monday of this week, we announced a SCO Intellectual Property IP Licensing
Agreement with EV1servers.net, one of the largest dedicated hosting firms and
independent Internet service providers in the United States. EV1servers.net is
one of several companies so far that has made the business decision to eliminate
the SCO intellectual property violation risks for its own business and that of
its customers. As more companies work with SCO to understand our claims and
complete their risk-analysis assessments, we anticipate that others will choose
to take advantage of the SCO IP license, and that consequently SCO will begin to
see increasing revenue from this initiative over the next several quarters.
Finally, as a quick update to our existing case against IBM, we continue to
look forward to having our case heard in a Utah courtroom. That is currently
scheduled for April 11, 2005. We believe that a jury will come to the same
conclusion we have, namely that the rule of law provides protection to SCO's
intellectual property. We are currently continuing the discovery phase of that
case and look forward to this case going to a jury trial.
To summarize then, with another quarter behind us, SCO continues to make notable
progress on our effort to build significant longterm value for our
shareholders. As we move into 2004, we will continue to focus on harvesting and
building new value from our UNIX operating assets, continuing the enforcement of
SCO's intellectual property rights, and generating increased traction and
revenue from our SCO IP licensing initiatives. Our work last year produced a
firm and stable financial and legal foundation from which we can enforce our
rights and build our business. Our actions this year should indicate to our
shareholders that we are aggressively moving forward to enforce our rights to
generate value from the assets that we own.
So at this point we would like to switch gears and go to Q & A. Bob and I will be
available to take your questions. We've also invited Mark Heise, who is
partnered with Boies, Schiller & Flexner Law Firm, to be on the call and
entertain whatever questions you may have from a legal front. So with that,
why don't we turn it back over to the operator to build the Q & A list?
Operator: . . . Dion Cornett, Decatur Jones.
Cornett:
Good morning. I have to admit here just when I give up on you guys bringing in
some SCOsource revenue and filing end-user lawsuits, you guys prove me wrong. So
I guess congrats on the steps forward there.
Real quick on the AutoZone case. Looking at your Supplemental Response
Interrogatory Numbers one and two, you state there that you believe AutoZone
is using your shared libraries because of their speed in porting to Linux. Do you
have any other evidence that they're using those, particularly given that
AutoZone employees, including Jim Greer, that once served on your Advisory
Board, said that those were not used? Earlier in the comments you talked about
it being core to their use in the copyright. I assume this goes to their use of
Red Hat, and this is the general part that would apply to all end users as
opposed to the shared libraries which would only apply to your customers.
McBride:
Let me start off by making a general statement as we get into these legal
questions and then I am going to turn some time over to Mark on these as well.
From a company standpoint, as a public company we have a very strong need to
get as much information as we can to our shareholders, and we've been trying to
do that over here the last year and be as open as we can down to as much detail
level as we could. Our counterparts that we're in battle against here have
convenient third-party websites that promote their cause, whereas we've
basically had the responsibility to tell our story ourselves.
In the Utah case, Magistrate Wells has asked both parties to show restraint in
what we say publicly, especially as it relates to the details of the case and
beyond some the questions we're getting to here, you are starting to get into
the details. So the judicial process is most important to SCO. Obviously we're
going to get as much information as we can out publicly, but in deference to
Judge Wells and her request, we will be answering things in a general as opposed
to a specific nature.
I will give one response to your questions there, and then if Mark has anything
else to add. What I would say in the case that we filed today: this is a general
set of claims that we have [inaudible] . . .
Cornett: I'm losing you. Could you speak up a little bit?
McBride: . . . Did that not come through? [inaudible] Hello?
Cornett:
I didn't hear anything that you said, Darl.
McBride:
Guys, I think we've got a problem with the phone in there. Can you get
something else? Take it off speaker or something. Apparently they're not even
hearing what we are saying.
Operator: Mr. McBride, you are coming through again.
McBride:
Was it a problem on your end?
Cornett:
You faded out. I didn't hear your response.
McBride:
I want to make sure [inaudible] faded back in before I start talking
again. Can you hear me now?
Cornett:
Yes sir.
McBride:
Let me restate that as a public company we have a very strong desire and need
to get information out to our shareholders. Our counterparts on the IBM front
have convenient third-party websites that promote their cause. We've been in a
position of having to basically go out with detailed information.
In the IBM case, Magistrate Wells has asked both parties to show restraint in
talking about this case in a public forum such as it relates to the details. The
judicial process is very important to SCO, and in deference to Judge Wells'
request from a going-forward standpoint, we will be speaking at a general level
as opposed to specifics.
What I would say about your question, Dion, the case we filed today was not
specific to the SCO shared libraries that you mentioned. This was a case that is
very general to anybody who would be using the Linux operating system.
Mark, do you have anything to add to that?
Heise: No. I would repeat what you said. First, we all are very much concerned and
don't want to do anything in opposition to the Magistrate Judge's request. And I
agree that, as a result, we really don't want to get into specifics.
But I think it is important to emphasize at this time that with the actions
that have been taken this week, including the case that we filed later today,
make it very clear while copyright is certainly an issue, SCO is a company that
has literally thousands of software agreements and licenses that have very clear
restrictions on them, and SCO is committed to [inaudible]
and will do everything in its power to do so. It has tried voluntarily to get
people to certify their compliance with these Unix System V licenses, and where
it meets resistance it is going to, unfortunately, have to resort to the legal
process and spend the time and money to do so. But SCO is committed to doing so.
And when a company has this many valuable contracts it certainly is not just
appropriate but is important for the company to vindicate its rights.
Cornett:
In recognition of deference to the judge, I certainly understand that, but
there's an assumption that you would have filed your best end-user lawsuit
first, and that AutoZone must be the best case you have and if filed in a
different venue certainly I would expect you to put out details to bolster that
case, particularly given the fact that there are tremendous amounts of details
coming out of the other side that make your case there appear weak. Furthermore,
it's sort of surprising that if you are going to file an end-user lawsuit you
would pick a past customer, which has all kinds of other agreements tied to
that that a general end-user that was not once a SCOsource -- a SCO user would
not have.
Heise:
I don't really want to get into the detail of how a particular end user is
selected or not. But with respect to your comment that there are folks on the
other side or out on the Internet that are claiming X, Y, and Z, that's the kind
of detail that is best left to the courtroom. And that's exactly where the
company is going to present all of its detail.
Operator:
Brian Skiba, Deutsche Bank.
Skiba:
First one, perhaps, maybe for clarification. You mentioned $3.4 million in costs in
the quarter for IP enforcement. Does that figure included contractual
enforcement, i.e. IBM and the preparation for the Daimler suit or is that simply
on the copyright and IP side?
Bench:
That's all of the legal and cost and fees associated with the full SCOsource
initiative. We've chosen to leave those in one bucket so our readers of our
financials could follow the cost and expenses associated with the full SCOsource
initiative. And that would include all of our litigation, IBM, discovery, and
also these claims that are being filed now with the end users.
Skiba:
And perhaps for Mark here, and I know you don't want to comment extensively
on this, but it would be fair to say that it's been a long time since Judge
Wells has responded back from post-SCO providing materials to IBM to, in effect
mandate that IBM return the favor, if you will, and put the AIX source code up
and basically make it available for you guys? I think it's something that the
world anticipated being measured in days, and now it's already been weeks. I'm
just wondering whether it's possible to get any kind of read on why that
time frame has been so long? And just as a followup to that, if we can get any
color on why the end-user lawsuit against AutoZone basically was 3.5 months in
the making? And should we anticipate that each, there will be subsequent suits
faster, or whether . . .How we should take a read on that?
Heise: With respect to Magistrate Judge Wells, I cannot speculate as to what it is
that's causing her delay, although I can tell you when we did meet in the
hearing in Utah, she was very clear that she, like many federal judges, has a
very busy calendar. So beyond that, I don't have any other information.
With respect to future suits, I think there's not going to be this concern of
having to wait three months or six months between litigation.
Suits will be filed to the extent they are appropriate as done. But these are
not cases that the company takes lightly, and they want to fully investigate
before filing any claims.
Operator: Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe.
Bray:
Kind of an obvious question: this thing about DaimlerChrysler is all news to
me, and I'm not really clear what it means. It sounds similar to the IBM case,
if I have understood it correctly, some kind of a contract case. I'm wondering
what exactly is the connection, if any, with the dispute over Linux?
McBride:
In the IBM case, clearly that is a contract case. There are some similarities
that way. But these are very different in terms of being end users of the UNIX
license as opposed to IBM, which is a vendor. So the two cases we filed today
are separate from the litigation that is going on in Salt Lake. The requirement that we have in our agreements with DaimlerChrysler and with
thousands of others that we have mailed out here over the last couple of months
is a performance requirement that they come back and certify to us that they're
in fact living up to the obligations that are found inside of the agreement
itself. We've had many that have fulfilled that certification requirement. We
have many others who have not. So that has put us in this position where we have
an absolute demand requirement that we can put out on them. They have a
requirement to respond back to us, and when they don't respond, the only way to
follow up on that is with the litigation enforcement steps we took today. So as
you read through the suit, you'll be able to see what we're looking at there
that mainly is a breach of a UNIX software agreement by failing to voluntary
certify its compliance with our software agreements.
Bray:
It has nothing to do, then, with any assertion that they are, for example,
misappropriating your intellectual property by using Linux or adding code to the
Linux operating system? Does Linux have anything to do with this one at all?
McBride: It does relate to it in that to the extent that they have taken . . .they have
had access to our source code, and then they have in fact imported that
knowledge or that code or in other ways broken their contract rights on the UNIX
source code license as they have developed or grown or contributed to Linux, then
that would absolutely create a violation. That is why we sent out the
certification demands. And to the extent that people have not broken those
agreements, then that's fine. To the extent they have not had a clean-room
implementation or a clean-room environment as they have been working on Linux,
then that absolutely creates the problem with the requirements they have under
their UNIX source code . . .
Bray:
But are you saying that they actually have done this with Linux? Or are you
just saying we don't know, and we insist that you confirm one way or the other?
McBride:
That's all this suit is about is: you need to confirm one way or another.
Operator:
Bill Claybrook, The Harvard Research Group.
Claybrook:
You may have answered this question that I have before about why Daimler and
AutoZone were the two companies you picked. If you've answered that, then I have
another question.
McBride:
In the case of Daimler, they were one of a number of companies that didn't
respond to the request we sent out. If you remember, in December we sent out
requests to UNIX licensees, asking them to certify their compliance with the
software agreement. Back to one of the questions that came up earlier from Brian,
why is it taking a longer period of time . . . why did it take three months? We
went in December, we sent out letters to large users of Linux, and to UNIX
licensees. We gave them a time frame to respond. January 31st was the first
deadline that came . . . after that deadline came, we looked at the companies that had
violated the agreements just in terms of not responding, so that in itself
creates a contractual violation. And based on a variety of other factors I'm not
going to get into, that put Daimler at the head of the class.
With respect to AutoZone, a similar type of situation where we have been in
communication with them, we have had various talks with them over the last
several months. And then back to the situation again of sending out a letter to
them regarding the use of Linux, and that put them into the camp.
One thing to think about here is that these are not just two users that we
randomly picked. They're basically at the head of two different classes of end
users that we feel are violating our agreements or our copyrights. And that's
the two groups: one is source code licensees and then the other group is
Linux end users that we feel are violating our copyrights.
Claybrook: As you know, I've been following this for a long time. And recently, after
talking to SCO in another briefing, I went back and looked at the history of
development of UNIX. Just about everything [inaudible] BSD jumpstarted from
AT&T's efforts with Richie and Thompson. And BSD code went into their
version and some code from their version went into the BSD, back and forth. Why
is it that . . . I don't think you're saying that you own copyright to Linux, but
why aren't you?
McBride:
We're not claiming rights on all of Linux. What we're claiming is rights to our
UNIX System V that we own. And if you look at . . . if you take a hard look at the
AutoZone suit, what you'll see in there are claims we have on structural
copyright components that tie to pieces inside of Linux that we feel are
violating those copyrights. It's not the entire code base of Linux. It is
structural components that we feel are significant, by the way, that map
over to Linux.
Mark, do you have anything else to add on that?
Heise:
No. I think that, as we discussed earlier, in keeping with the court's request,
that there's not much else that can be said or should be said at this time.
Operator:
Stephen Vaughan-Nichols, Eweek.com.
Vaughan-Nichols:
My question is a clarification of the situation of AutoZone. Am I correct in
assuming that the real problem with AutoZone is not so much that they're using
Linux, it's that they're in violation of their OpenServer license agreement
concerning shared libraries and that that is the core of your complaint with
AutoZone, that they're using these OpenServer shared licenses in
Linux, which is of course not according to the license for those libraries?
Heise:
With respect to that issue, the fact that they've got the OpenServer shared
libraries is an issue, but that is not the core of the copyright claim that's
been asserted. As set forth in the complaint, it lays out the various structure
sequences and functionalities of UNIX System V that appear in Linux which is
being used by AutoZone.
Vaughan-Nichols:
So, it's both the issue that they are using Linux, which SCO maintains contains
copyrighted SCO System V, and the OpenServer shared libraries?
Heise:
I think the two. The OpenServer shared libraries just adds an additional
layer, but at its core, it is a copyright claim for the use of the UNIX System V
as is shown in the complaint.
McBride:
Maybe the simple way to think about it is that if you took a near replica of
this current complaint and filed it against someone we've never had an agreement
with, it would look just about the same.
Vaughan-Nichols:
One further clarification. And the difference between this and DaimlerChrysler
is that in DaimlerChrysler's case, the core of that case is that they had access
to UNIX source code? They have not complied with your request to assert that
they have not in any way, shape or form allowed any of that source code to go
into Linux?
McBride:
Correct. That's one of the things we're asking for certification on.
Heise:
Among other items.
Operator:
Todd Weiss, Computer World.
Weiss:
Two quick questions. Again, I wonder, what if the companies don't want to line
up for these licenses and want to wait for the court to decide? What's SCO
going to do if they don't all line up like you're hoping they do?
McBride:
Let's take that one on first. I believe our story right now is pretty simple.
We feel very strongly that we have these end-user problems relating to contracts
and to copyrights, and if people would prefer to work through the court system,
then we will file complaints and we'll work through the court system. That's what
we have announced here today. Earlier this week we had another end user that
chose to take the licensing path, and a substantial, material sites deal that we
signed on Monday where EV1servers.net is going to be going out to their
customers and having a safe environment to operate in. So depending on which way
customers want to go, we will accommodate their desires.
Weiss:
One other question, and that is . . .and I've asked you this before, Darl . . . but
now, as we get into these lawsuits, it really makes me wonder: What if, at the
end of all this, say this goes to trial, and the trial's completed and SCO
loses. Are you guys going to . . . you're going to have a bunch of companies,
whoever signed up for this, angry. Are you going to refund these fees, if in fact
it is found at the end of this trial, however long it takes, you're wrong?
McBride:
I think as a simple answer on that one, we wrote some code out, we sent
some out last summer. Community members in the Linux program environment came
out and admitted that the code was in Linux in error, that our System V code was
in there in error. And we feel very comfortable at various levels that we have
infringement problems going on today. We're not saying take a license for Linux,
the whole thing. We're saying when you take the license for Linux, you can use
out IP, wherever it may be showing, in this case inside of Linux. And there's
already admitted violations going on inside of Linux. So we feel very
comfortable on that front that we're giving people coverage. In that environment,
people don't have to go start ripping code out. They have the mechanism to be
safe while they're running Linux.
Operator:
Larry Greenmeier, Information Week Magazine.
Greenmeier:
Most of my questions have been asked already, but I wanted to get back to the
UNIX license question with DaimlerChrysler. Could you explain to me, just
quickly, what the certification means? What you were looking for them to prove
when you sent that letter out a few months ago?
Heise:
Just in terms of, as laid out in the complaint, there are various obligations
of licensees like Daimler and many others have agreed . . . in exchange for their
access to the UNIX operating system, they've agreed to certain restrictions. For example, confidentiality, not disposing of it in whole or in part. And the
company in December sent out a letter very clearly specifying that they wanted
certification that the UNIX System V was being used in pursuant to the terms of
the agreement and wanted to make sure that it was being maintained in
confidence, was not being disposed of in whole or in part, that anybody that had
access to it was keeping it confidential, that employees were being told and
required to keep it confidential and issues like that. That is all very clearly
laid out in the suit that will be filed.
Greenmeier:
So them not returning that certification sent up a red flag to SCO, is that
what we are talking about here?
Heise:
Yes.
McBride:
More than a red flag. It created a contract violation in and of itself. They
have a contract requirement to, in fact, certify, and so at a first pass it's a
pretty simple contract violation. Then as we go through discovery and we go
through the process of finding out what is going on over there, we will see if
there are further violations.
Operator:
Herbert Jackson, Renaissance Ventures.
Jackson:
I have got one question with respect to discovery on Novell and then a follow.
Where are you? I'm not sure who is due to reply to the last set of a
interrogatories.
Heise:
In the Novell case?
Jackson:
In the Novell case, yes.
Heise:
The Novell case was originally filed in the state court and was removed to
federal court, and, as a result, discovery does not take place until there's been
a scheduling conference, which usually does not take place until down the road.
So there's been no discovery back and forth in the Novell case at all.
Jackson:
The end-users suits that you're filing now, they seem to be non-dependent upon
the allegations that you made against Novell. Could you comment?
Heise:
I think that's an accurate statement. These cases don't implicate the issues in
Novell. And SCO is the owner of UNIX System V, both the software sub-licensing
agreements, the copyrights and everything related thereto, and it also is the
holder of claims arising out of any breach of the agreements. That's where SCO
finds itself. And the Novell case really has little to do with that.
Jackson:
Thanks. That is great.
Operator:
Phil Keys, Nikkei Electronics.
Keys:
I just wanted to ask if there was any reason why you chose a couple of
companies resident here in the United States? And if there's also any plans to
look at companies residing outside the United States for possible lawsuits?
McBride:
We started here in the US. That's where we have the cornerstone of our legal
team based right now. We do have other initiatives we're looking at in Europe,
as well as in Asia. But clearly for us the important starting point was here in
the United States.
Just as importantly, if you look at these thousands of UNIX license agreements
we have, it clearly is not a US-only situation. And just as obviously, Linux is
not a US-only situation. So we will be enforcing our legal rights not
just here in the US, but around the world. But the starting point is definitely
here.
Operator:
Ken Brown, Investors Business Daily.
Brown:
In the customers that are the subjects you chose to file the first lawsuits
against, are you afraid of sending the message that you're going to go after
your own customers, your own licensees first? And when do you expect to file
some against Linux users who are not UNIX licensees?
McBride:
I think if you look at the people we have filed suit against today, they're not
currently customers of SCO. We sat down with 25 of our largest customers here
several months ago at our national advisory board meeting, and we have very good
relationships with our current customer set. The current customers we have are
paying us licensing fees, and that is not where we have the problem. It's been
years since we have had a relationship with AutoZone and a similar situation
with Daimler.
What we're looking at that with these UNIX license contracts, basically even
though we don't have revenue coming in from those right now, what we do have,
like in the case of Daimler, is a requirement that they keep those source code
licenses upheld in terms of the restrictions on confidentiality. And so that's
what we're doing in that case.
Operator:
Matthew Mark, Jet Capital.
Mark:
Can you walk through the timeline on the user litigation and how it is going
to be affected most likely by the timeline on the IBM suit, as well as the timeline on any of the other litigations the company has pending against it?
Heise:
With respect to predicting the future, I'm not particularly adept. I can tell
you that the copyright claims are all going to be in federal court, and so just
depending upon the district in which they're filed, they will proceed
accordingly. There should be no impact one way or the other to the IBM case.
McBride:
With respect to the Daimler case, that is filed in state court, so I don't know
if that created a different timeline or not. But there is a subtle difference
there between state and federal courts, I suppose.
Heise:
It would be expected that the case outside Detroit will proceed a little bit
more rapidly.
Operator:
Peter Williams, VNU Business Publications.
Williams:
Can you tell me whether there's any company in the UK that's likely to be
assessed for a lawsuit in the next couple of months?
McBride:
We're not here to talk about future litigation or other [inaudible] but
I can absolutely tell you that we have enforcement activities going on in Europe
that would include the UK and other various countries over there, as well as
we do over in Japan. So they will be lagging a bit behind us from where we are
right now, but absolutely we would expect at some point in time we would end up
in that situation.
Williams:
Can you comment on the fact that an Australian company is actually suing you at
the moment?
McBride:
We don't have any outstanding lawsuits against us in Australia right now.
Williams:
Just a moment. A company called CyberKnights . . .
McBride:
If it's happened in the last 12 hours, I wouldn't know -- I'm not familiar with
one over there . . .
Williams:
Not actually familiar with it?
McBride:
Right.
Heise: [inaudible] . . . I don't believe a lawsuit has been filed.
McBride:
Right.
Operator:
Terry Tillman, Schwab Soundview.
Tillman:
In terms of the SCOsource licensing, you said you had one customer that signed
up for that earlier in the week, and you put out an announcement. How does the
revenue recognition work for that?
Bench:
As with some of the other licenses, that revenue will be recognized as the cash
comes in. Some of these are structured over time rather then up-front payments.
And since we don't have any trends right now established, we will recognize that
as the cash comes in.
Tillman:
This seems like it was a bigger contract. Are they paying monthly, or are they
paying once a year, or . . . ?
Bench:
They are paying on a periodic basis, and right now that contract requires that
we not disclose the terms of that. But it will be over . . . as we announced, we
will recognize that income over the next several quarters.
Tillman:
Thank you.
McBride:
It is material and sizable compared to deals that we have had up to this point.
Tillman:
Got it. Thanks.
Operator:
Stephen Shankland, CNET.
Shankland:
I had two questions. First of all, Mark, you said, I believe, that the case
with Novell does not have any bearing on this. It seems to me that establishing
ownership of the copyright to UNIX System V would have a great deal of bearing
on this case.
Heise:
SCO has consistently maintained its ownership of the copyrights. And Novell has
come out and said that they owned it, then realized that they didn't, retracted
from that, and then they went ahead and started on. But SCO has always
maintained the unequivocal position of ownership of the copyrights, and as a
result is the precise reason why it filed a slander of title action against
Novell for its actions in the marketplace claiming ownership to the copyrights
that SCO owns.
Shankland:
With Novell also having registered UNIX copyrights, isn't the first thing a
court is going to do is say, "OK, we have to wait and see who has actually
established rights to these, since this is under litigation"? Or do they just go
ahead and do it since you have established some copyrights?
Heise:
As you noted, both of us have registered copyrights. How a court would react to
that will remain to be seen.
Shankland:
Another question on the business. Actually a legal question. Why Nevada for
AutoZone?
Heise:
Nevada is where AutoZone is incorporated, and so it's taking advantage of the
corporate benefits of being a resident of Nevada and has been sued where it is a
resident.
Shankland:
For Darl, more on the business side, I wonder if you fear the fact that you're
suing licensees? And granted it's a former customer, but if that sends a
message to potential future customers, do you think that people are going to be
excited at the opportunity of buying or licensing your technology given your
litigious nature right now?
McBride:
Again, back to our current customer set, that is not where we have the problem.
In fact, many of our current customers have come in and said, "Go, fight, win.
We're glad that you're fighting for your rights and we hope that you win."
Shankland:
I'm talking future customers, not current customers.
McBride:
Right, and so to the point, we didn't have a lot of future customers to talk
about in the world where we had a thing out there called a Linux operating
system that was replicating our UNIX, and whenever you put something out there
for a zero price versus what we were charging, the future was not very bright in
that environment.
What I can say is that this quarter alone, we have signed new customers. We've
actually seen some rebound effect starting to come in to the core business on
the UNIX side. And our expectation as we go forward is that people are going to
appreciate it.
I think a lot of this comes down, as Bob said earlier, from an education
standpoint people need to understand what's going on here and once they get
educated and they get a better understanding of what our rights are, then for
the most part 90 some odd percent of the marketplace actually agrees very
strongly with the copyright and contract protection. So we think that as we go
forward and we educate people on our rights that it's going to be favorable for
us.
If you go to the music industry as an example, think about when Napster was in
its heyday. There were 40 million people downloading songs, and the initial
response when the word came out that this might be illegal was, "Oh, I didn't
know about it." Then there was a period where people kept downloading, but then
once things started to really tighten down on the legal front, then the RIAA
actually saw a decrease of over half the people who were doing music downloads
illegally quit doing them. So we think that for the most part we're going to see
some similar trends here.
Operator:
Mike [inaudible]
Mike:
Just wondering if you could give us an idea on what you're going be seeking in
terms of damages.
McBride:
That's going to be stated at trial. Mark, I don't know. Do you want to just
. . .? We're not talking specifically on this, but Mark maybe you can give . . .?
Mike:
A ballpark figure maybe.
McBride:
Mark, maybe you can give a tutorial on how copyright damages work in the
willful or nonwillful categories.
Heise:
At this juncture a dollar figure has not been presented and is not required to
be presented, so I would rather really not comment on what is we're seeking from
any individual user.
Mike:
Could you clarify again your relationship with DaimlerChrysler? Are they a past
customer or a current customer?
Heise:
DaimlerChrysler has a software agreement with SCO, actually its predecessor.
That's the agreement that's the operative agreement in the litigation.
Operator:
Paula Rooney, CRN.
Rooney:
I'm trying to narrow down the case against AutoZone. So, the copyright claim
has nothing to do with the Linux kernel per se, correct?
McBride:
No, this does have to do with the Linux kernel.
Rooney:
You said that the case is not specific to SCO shared libraries, that it's a
very general . . . to anyone using the operating system . . .
McBride:
I'm saying anybody using Linux. I guess what I'm trying to say here is a lot of
people . . . I think we are trying to say. . . because there is the fact that AutoZone
has been a SCO UNIX user in the past, a OpenServer user until a couple of years
ago, that in the migration to Linux there could have been some problems with the
SCO shared libraries that would have been unique to a customer using SCO moving
to Linux. The case that was filed today was much broader than that, and
basically impacts anywhere the Linux kernel would be showing up in an end-user
environment.
Rooney:
But you said it has to do with structural components that is tied to pieces
inside Linux.
McBride:
And those would be kernel-related.
Rooney:
But the components are those developed by AutoZone the customer?
McBride:
No. Again, I guess the simple way to think of it is if you took the case we
filed against AutoZone yesterday and did a search and replace on the name of an
end user who we never had a relationship with but is running Linux, that suit
would pretty much hold up. It's going to be a little bit different obviously,
but in general the claims that we're making there are pervasive throughout
the end-user Linux community.
Rooney:
But you are saying it's not the shared libraries, so what is the code in
question here?
McBride:
It's all spelled out in the complaint, and it's pretty detailed to go through
right now. But there are a number of structural components as you read through
the complaint that you will see where those are.
Heise:
Let me just interject for one moment. This is the precise type of information
that was specifically requested by the court to not go into. So it's really just
something that I want to caution Darl on that we just really don't want to be
getting into that kind of detail.
Rooney:
It's the heart of the case, I think it's fair to ask the question on what the
code is.
McBride:
Again, it's in the filing.
Rooney:
Then you mentioned that there were specific programmers who acknowledge
violation. Who are these programmers?
Heise:
Again, we're not getting into the witnesses in the case, the underlying
information of the case. It's not where we're going.
Operator:
Rebecca Reid, ITWorld Canada.
Reid:
I actually just have a couple of questions. How many SCO IP licenses have the
Company sold so far?
McBride:
We haven't published the exact number right now, but it is still measured in
the handfuls. The significance of this week is the level and materiality of
those in this last case has definitely increased significantly.
Reid:
When you say a handful, is that less than 10 or less than 50?
McBride:
Less than 50.
Reid:
I'm also interested in -- I know you sent out, you have about 3,000 UNIX
licenses. How many of those did respond to the December letter?
McBrideL
I don't have those exact numbers in front of me. I can tell you that we had a
number of responses that did come back to us. I can tell you there was a
substantial number that did not respond.
Reid:
So, more than half?
McBride:
I would say more than half did not respond.
Reid:
Great. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, due to time constraints, we will conclude today's question-and-answer session. At this time, for any closing or additional remarks, I will
turn the conference back to Mr. Darl McBride. Please go ahead, sir.
McBride:
Thanks for joining us here on our call today. As we said earlier, 2003 fiscal
year was really about shoring up the balance sheet. Our cash position did get
significantly stronger. We built a war chest to be able to go out and defend our
intellectual property rights, which we think are substantial, and we're doing
that, as we did last year in the IBM case and as we're doing today, as we have
broadened the enforcement down to the end-user playing field.
As we go through this year, we're very focused on building this company from a
shareholder-value standpoint, not just around big [inaudible] revenue that show up and
then don't continue. We had actually some opportunities at the end of last year
to do some other major tens of millions of dollars-type of licensing deals that
would have given a substantial amount of absolution to the Linux marketplace,
but it would have had a very dampening effects on our company's longer-term
future. What we're focused on is not something that is going to be measured in
tens of millions, but something that has another zero or two behind that over
the coming years. So with today's announcement, even though the actual numbers
were down for the quarter, we're very encouraged about the progress we're making
on the legal front. We're encouraged about the foundation we have on the balance
sheet-side, and we're encouraged that we now have end users that are starting to
step up in a substantial way. So we believe that we're going to have a
good year this year rebuilding the operating statement like we had rebuilding
the balance sheet last year.
The final thing I would say is it is a tough position we're in [inaudible] a number of the questions today. Gosh, it's hard to go out and sue somebody.
Yes, we're not particularly thrilled with it ourselves, but we do believe that
this is an education process and that as we work through these issues with the
end-user environment, both on the UNIX and the Linux side, that we will come to
some positive resolutions as we move forward. And the same [inaudible] hope too on the
copyright front as well.
I appreciate you joining our call today, and we look forward to talking to you
again.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this will conclude today's teleconference. We do thank
you for your participation and you may disconnect at this time.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: NZheretic on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:55 AM EST |
| An open letter to antitrust, competition, consumer and trade
practice monitoring agency officials worldwide..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:01 AM EST |
Knowing how SCO likes to play with numbers, I pose this question regarding the
following statement by the CFO:
"Revenue from our SCOsource division relating to compliance licenses was
20,000."
20,000 what? yen? pesos? magic jumping beans? Or is the dollar sign just
missing? This is SCO after all, you really shouldn't assume anything.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:08 AM EST |
Have any attorneys volunteered to represent you (us all really) and Groklaw,
will you start a fund for legal representation? Will the OSDL fund be available
to you? Do you think they would have a chance? I am sure there are many others
besides me who would be very upset if they did this. You have my promise of
financial support to what extent I can if it comes to a legal fight.
... oops didnt sign in... MrEd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ - If they do try to silence Groklaw... - Authored by: davidbakody on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:35 AM EST
- PJ - If they do try to silence Groklaw... - Authored by: hardcode57 on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:14 AM EST
- PJ - If they do try to silence Groklaw... site moderation - Authored by: cab15625 on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:25 AM EST
- Contingency planning - Authored by: DaveWalley on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:35 AM EST
- PJ - If they do try to silence Groklaw... - Authored by: billposer on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:11 PM EST
- Involving PJ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 02:41 PM EST
- Involving PJ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 03:26 PM EST
- PJ - If they do try to silence Groklaw... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 03:40 PM EST
- PJ - If they do try to silence Groklaw... - Authored by: John on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:34 PM EST
- Post it on Slashdot - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 06:22 PM EST
- ...host somewhere in the free world - Authored by: Zds on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 06:43 PM EST
- How to shut down Groklaw? - Authored by: swengr on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:03 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:10 AM EST |
There's a saying that you're not really paranoid if everyone really is out to
get you. In the case of SCO, it may not be "everyone" but instead, it
is those that are interested in correcting the half-truths, misdirections and
obfustications that have seemingly been a part of their daily regimen.
It is SCO, rather that IBM or any of the other defandants (or in Red Hat's case,
plaintiffs) that have consistently tried to "try the case in the
media." They have done so by making statements that are patently
deceiving, especially to those that know better.
That is where Groklaw has come in, and it is a valuable resource, especially to
those of us in the great unwashed that are not always privy to the history and
technical facts of this case. We have paralegals, programmers, historians, and
regular joes all posting valuable information. It comes from a variety of
sources, but to my recollection, it has not come from IBM (or DC, AZ, etc.)
Nevertheless, that does not make it any less true.
Certainly, not everything posted on Groklaw is purely factual. There has been
an increase in the political opinions posted on this site, and at times, that
has resulted in a lively debate that to an outside might seem like rancor. But
at the same time it has largely been civil.
SCO need not fear Groklaw. What they do need to fear is the truth, and it seems
like SCO has spent a great deal of time avoiding that truth. No,
"everyone" may not be out to "get them," but at the same
time, there is a community here that is interested in correcting their
misstatements. And indeed, they should fear that.
Hear, hear, PJ. You represent the good things that internet was conceived for.
Keep up the good work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:10 AM EST |
| Please put corrections in this thread, so I can find them quickly. Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:11 AM EST |
When I read stuff like this, it makes me feel that I would like to see the
concept of the seperation of church and state to the business world, with the
seperation of corperation and state.
Government these days, seems to serve only a few and not the many. We, the
people, need to take our world back from the few elitist who live off of us.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:11 AM EST |
| Please put news and updates with urls here please. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:15 AM EST |
One option if you get shut down: www.groklaw.de
We should be glad to live in a country with "free speech" guaranteed,
or should we?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:19 AM EST |
| I suspect that SCO may be working up to asking the judge to make Groklaw
stop covering the case or to restrict our coverage.
One should realize
that SCO has already given notice to Groklaw, SCO style, of course.
They
start by casting false impressions and relaying them VIA the press.
If their
message is not accepted as the threat it is, a lawsuit cannot be far
behind.
modus operandi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:20 AM EST |
"As we begin our 2004 fiscal year, I'd like to start off by taking a look
at how the SCO Group has evolved since I became CEO a little over 18 months ago.
Upon joining the company, one of my first decisions was to identify the
strengths and the core assets of the company. This quickly resulted in a renewed
focus on our UNIX intellectual property and a return to the recognized SCO UNIX
brand."
seems to me that this should be in blue. under previous management the IP of
the kernel contributers were respected.
TSG is not SCO, but it is not really the same as Caldera either. although not
successful, Caldera was at least a software comapny.
.02
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:24 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST |
"Our counterparts that we're in battle against here have convenient
third-party websites that promote their cause, whereas we've basically had the
responsibility to tell our story ourselves."
Quick, somebody give a handkerchief to the bully who got himself beaten up!
"What I would say about your question, Dion, the case we filed today was
not specific to the SCO shared libraries that you mentioned. This was a case
that is very general to anybody who would be using the Linux operating
system."
That interpretation might work with those who don't make a habit of reading the
SCO Group's pleadings.
"They're basically at the head of two different classes of end users that
we feel are violating our agreements or our copyrights. And that's the two
groups: one is source code licensees and then the other group is Linux end users
that we feel are violating our copyrights"
Ditto. It pays to go back to the text of the SCO Group's complaint.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:23 AM EST |
| IANAA... but I'm a little more willing than most to sift through these
financials :-}
Quoth Bob Bench, SCO's esteemed CFO:
As the
company had previously announced, we're accounting for the conversion feature
included in our Series A convertible preferred stock financing as a derivative
financial instrument, which requires us to determine its fair value at the end
of each quarter. The decrease in the derivative valuation for the first quarter
of 2004 was $3.6 million and is included as other
income.
IOW, they hedged against a decrease in their stock
price, and won the bet. They profited as their stock went
down.
On February 5, 2004 we exchanged our Series A
preferred stock for Series A-1 preferred stock. As a result of the exchange, we
eliminated the derivative financial instrument. Subsequent to February 5th we
will no longer report a charge with a change in fair value of the derivative.
Any difference between the fair value of the new Series A-1 preferred stock and
the carrying value of the Series A preferred stock and related derivative will
be recorded as a dividend in our income statement for the second quarter ending
April 30, 2004. This dividend may be material and increase loss (ph) to net
common shareholders for our April 30th quarter. This dividend will not affect
our cash balance or our operating margins, and will decrease our current
liabilities.
I don't quite get this part, but it sounds like
they rode that hedge as far as it could take them. Now they're
increasing(?) the company's exposure to a fall in the stock price. By
expensing this as a dividend, it sounds like they'll be sticking it hard to the
common stockholders -- the ones who buy and sell on the open market. (They own
a stock that's charging a dividend without paying it out!) Meanwhile, the
preferred shareholders get to accrue interest while they wait for a good time to
convert their holdings to common.
Is there really anyone left who
wants to hold this stock?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Frihet on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:27 AM EST |
"Bray: But are you saying that they actually have done this with Linux? Or
are you just saying we don't know, and we insist that you confirm one way or the
other?
McBride: That's all this suit is about is: you need to confirm one way or
another."
Is Daryl saying, "Yep, that's what this is, a witch hunt."???
---
Frihet
Repeal the Digital Monopoly Conservation Act.
Write your congress folks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:28 AM EST |
If SCO lawyers included information in public court records that was supposed to
be kept private, will this violate any confidentiality agreements that SCO might
have with CA or the other companies?
<p>
Could this be yet another minefield that SCO has entered.... seemingly by
accident?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:29 AM EST |
"Our counterparts on the IBM front have convenient third-party websites
that promote their cause. We've been in a position of having to basically go out
with detailed information."<br><br>
Bully baby got a black eye. Let's go for double or nothing, actually: double
(two black eyes) for them <i>and</i> nothing (no damage) for us! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:35 AM EST |
Groklaw is useful but the style of debate make it seem like a sco-bash. Would it
be possible to have a groklaw without the comments, just the editorial and
transcriptions (e.g. the headlines) so that those who are fact finding
(hopefully that should include reporters) can find the important stuff without
seeing the noise that SCO are complaining about, maybe called it GrokList or
some such?
Adrian, UK
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:46 AM EST
- SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript - Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:46 AM EST
- SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript - Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:12 AM EST
- SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:14 AM EST
- SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript - Authored by: nvanevski on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:17 AM EST
- SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript - Authored by: be2weenthelines on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:30 AM EST
- SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:35 PM EST
- SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 02:09 PM EST
- Harry Truman quote - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 03:52 PM EST
- SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 05:44 PM EST
- sco has no websites...because nobody believes them - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:19 PM EST
- SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:17 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:38 AM EST |
With the linkage of The SCO Group as being a stooge for
Microsoft and Gates billions it is only going to be a matter
of time before some judges in some jurisdiction decides
that Gorklaw by posting all relevant public information
concerning The SCO Group escapades is in violation of
The SCO Group rights to scam whom they choose
whenever The SCO Group chooses wherever The SCO
Group chooses and places a restraining order on Gorklaw
so that Gorklaw and/or PJ can not continue.
I am thus suggesting that Gorklaw establish alternate
locations in countries that will allow Gorklaw to continue to
operate regardless of what happens to Gorklaw in the
crazed U.S. court system.
Several strong possibilities come to mind including the
U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Germany. People more
familiar with other countries laws besides the U.S. may
have additional suggestions.
As for as timing the time to act is NOW before there is any
substantive judicial attempt. After the fact and there could
be unfavorable legal consequences to an attempt to move
off shore.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:39 AM EST |
"Earlier this week we had another end user that chose to take the licensing
path, and a substantial, material sites deal that we signed on Monday where
EV1servers.net is going to be going out to their customers and having a safe
environment to operate in."
Let's give EV1.net a rousing welcome to slavery! I always wondered what happens
when a company loses its cash, its reputation and its sanity to a bunch of
unscrupulous operators, and lo and behold: the CEO of EV1.net kindly volunteers
his company as the lab rat for that grand experiment![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:39 AM EST |
it sounds like TSG is saying that it should be illegal to port to other
platforms. that it should not matter if they acctually used TSG code.
what exactly is a Code Structure? it sounds like an API.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:44 AM EST |
McBride: I think as a simple answer on that
one, we
wrote some code out, we sent some out last summer. Community members
in
the Linux program environment came out and admitted that the code was in
Linux in error, that our System V code was in there in
error.
This must be that memory allocator that SGI had
included... and has been
determined to be public information from way
earlier. It is NOT System V
code. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:13 AM EST
- Selective Amneisa - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:02 AM EST
- ISTR the code was in Sys V, but not theirs - it's BSD code, - Authored by: aug24 on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:26 AM EST
- And what was that in reply to?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:34 AM EST
- SCO March 3, 2004 First Quarter Teleconference - Transcript - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:34 PM EST
- Darl says this in every interview! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 03:22 PM EST
- SCO's SGI ate_malloc() spin, and thanks to Ujay - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:43 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:45 AM EST |
...Some time ago, I read an SCO document about some certification requirements
apparently above and beyond what was in their license agreements. Is this the
sticking point?
Can a company add requirements unilaterally when there is already a valid,
agreed upon certification method? As I recall, the new 'requirements' were a lot
more comprehensive than those apparently specified in the license agreement. I
admit to not having a lot of knowledge about previous SCO licenses, but as it
seems in character for them to assert that they can change terms on existing
licenses at their discretion, I thought I'd bring it up.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:49 AM EST |
Keys: I just wanted to ask if there was any reason why you chose
a couple of companies resident here in the United States? And if there's also
any plans to look at companies residing outside the United States for possible
lawsuits?
I'm curious about the seemingly softball/setup
questions from some players. Google won't give me much of a handle on Phil Keys
except for this
japanese article from October 2003 -- any fluent speakers care to translate
so we can determine which side of the fence Phil is on? The article has some
pretty pictures of Darl so it can't be all bad...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:49 AM EST |
Call me a nut, but there are eerie similarities between SCO v. The World and COS
(Church of Scientology) v. The World. The Scientology cases are further along,
and perhaps provide a guide to what a small group of fanatical believers with an
impossible defense will do -- especially if they have lots of expensive lawyers
and no morals whatsoever.
In any case, in McPhereson v. FLAG, in Florida, the judge shut down effective
commentary on the case by saying that she would prefer not to see the
transcripts and exhibits show up on the internet in real time. She didn't
prohibit them, but she did say that she didn't like it.
In that case, the decision was made by the Scientology critics to not publish
information to the 'net until the trial was over -- frustrating as that might
be. You just don't want to annoy the judge.
I hope that that doesn't happen here. I have to say that the information and
commentary on Groklaw has been a shining example of clear, measured debate --
without hyperbole, threats, or name-calling. IBM has already referenced Groklaw
in its filings, and will probably do it again -- because of Groklaw's stellar
reputation and unblemished honesty. I would hope that the judges in question
would be honored to have such a complete record of the case and its background
information available to the public.
On another, somewhat related note, I would respectfully suggest that PJ publish
the names of people who contribute transcripts and who dig up materials for the
case -- provide the same chain of attribution that will be Linux's strongest
defense against SCO's scurrilous accusations. Think about it.
Thad Beier[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tompa on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:51 AM EST |
Finally, as a quick update to our existing case against IBM, we
continue to look forward to having our case heard in a Utah courtroom. That is
currently scheduled for April 11, 2005.
Did he really say 2005?
Not that I don't believe this could drag out that long. I'm more surprised they
have a court date planned that far in advance.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TerryL on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:56 AM EST |
| I suspect that SCO may be working up to asking the judge to make Groklaw stop
covering the case or to restrict our coverage. That may be why they keep
insisting, falsely, that Groklaw is sponsored by IBM.
Even if somehow
they manage to restrict what's on Groklaw it's too late, many people now know
how to get at pacer and the documents and it's these that seem to be one of the
main problems, (could they stop you collecting, transcribing and making easily
available these documents anyway?)
The other major problem for them is the
Unix history and timeline - and that again is all publically available facts (if
sometimes no easily available) and surely no court in the US could stop the
publication of information of already publically available information?
It
strikes me the only thing they could shut down is the public speculation and
commentary about those facts. (that actually might not be all bad - at least I'd
get several hours a day back by not having to filter so many messages looking
for the nuggets and gems).
---
All comment and ideas expressed are my
own and do not necessarily reflect those of any other idiot... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:56 AM EST |
When reading about SCO suggesting Groklaw be gagged, I was very puzzled and
indeed quite alarmed. I'm not American (situated Helsinki, Finland), but I have
always been under the impression that in America, as in other Western societies,
freedom of speech would protect sites like Groklaw as long as nothing illegal is
published. What conceivable legal basis would SCO's wish have?
I hope it is just the usual unfounded SCO huffing and puffing, and if asked to
gag Groklaw, the judge would immediately deny the request as illegal.
A Finn
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:58 AM EST |
| Every time I see something like "And we're proud of our
loyal customer
base" I shake my head. I guess they're
proud of a customer base they can
bring lawsuits against. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:00 AM EST |
"I suspect that SCO may be working up to asking the judge to make Groklaw
stop covering the case or to restrict our coverage"
On what grounds? Distributing legal documents that are part and parcel of the
public record? Exercising freedom of speech in a way that falls well inside the
boundaries of the First Amendment of the US Constitution? Enquiring minds want
to know!
As for any argument that a possible jury trial would be prejudiced, forget it:
the SCO Group will go out of its way to weed out any jurors who knows anything
about Linux, and any admission on the part of a prospective juror that he or she
is reading groklaw - let alone that he or she is a member of the groklaw
community - will guarantee a lightning fast exit from the prospective jury pool.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:08 AM EST |
"Our counterparts that we're in battle against here have convenient
third-party websites that promote their cause, whereas we've basically had the
responsibility to tell our story ourselves."
Sorry for not posting anything more constructive but I nearly covered my
keyboard in coffee when I read that. I just can't believe the cheek of these
people!
Keep up the fantastic work PJ (but don't work too hard - I think we can all
struggle through a day or 2 without a SCO fix)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- They're joking, right? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:06 AM EST
- SCO Site - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:07 PM EST
- SCO Supporter Site - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:31 PM EST
- They're joking, right? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 07:33 PM EST
- They're joking, right? - Authored by: colnago on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:31 AM EST
- They're joking, right? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:24 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:09 AM EST |
I've been curious about something for a while now and
I'm not sure anyone
has asked it. Specifically the
question should go to SCOG directly if
possible.
Please bear with me for a moment: SCOG claims that the
end
user is left with the liability of the alleged
Copyright infringement. That
they're provider of
product/service is not responsible.
If that is
true: how is it possible that the end user
is magically no longer liable when
the provider purchases
a SCOG IP license?
If I recall correctly, the
SCOG IP license is
non-transferable.
Hmm... maybe this question should
be posed to Marsh at
EV1
RS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I'm Curious - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:52 AM EST
- I'm Curious - Authored by: fitter on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:41 AM EST
- I'm Curious - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: mflaster on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:09 AM EST |
I found it interesting that Darl seemed to very frequently *avoid* using the
"IP" term, and instead used "contracts" or
"copyrights".
Wow, should we complement him? :-)
I thought the funniest/best part was when the guy was asking him "But isn't
the code in question the heart of your complaint? Can't you tell us what it
is?"
"No."
Mike
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IP - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Dave Lozier on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:21 AM EST |
How unamerican it would be for anyone to try and shut this place down.
Everything here is based on public facts with insights provided by public
oppinion.
It wouldn't surprise me to see SCO try and have the site shut down. They are
scared.
Just when you think they can't be any more foolish with litigation they will try
and abolish the 1st amendment because of copyright infringement over all of the
s, c and o's in it.
---
~Dave[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seeks2know on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:22 AM EST |
Darl McBride opens the call with a monologue that
includes:
"Since that time we've been successful in
re-establishing SCO in the marketplace as the owner of the UNIX operating
system..."
Here is the CEO of a public corporation
conducting a open meeting with the investment community who makes false claims
in his opening statement.
SCO does not own the UNIX operating system.
Novell transferred ownership of the trademark and the specifications of what
comprises a UNIX operating system to The Open Group. The Open Group has since
certified many operating systems as UNIX.
SCO is fully aware that their
statement is false, yet they continue to publicly misrepresent their UNIX
intellectual property rights.
Where, oh where, is the
SEC??? ---
"The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied
later a thousandfold."
-- Aristotle [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zjimward on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:23 AM EST |
When McBride makes this comment:
DaimlerChrysler is one of several thousand companies that have a source code
and/or source reference license agreement with SCO. These agreements, such as
the one with DaimlerChrysler, describe the terms under which the licensee may
use UNIX System V, as well as the derivative works of UNIX System V, which
include certain other flavors of UNIX, as well as Linux.
I wonder if they are really trying to tie this into the ABI letter that they
sent out. If so, this is not libraries that were moved from SCO Unix to Linux,
these files already existed in Linux and have yet to be proved as stolen code
from Unix.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shareme on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:24 AM EST |
If the Judge asks groklaw not to post I know of 5 different areas where the post
wil stil lexist:
1 blogs
2 Other opensource sites
3 Theregister
4 Newsforge
5 slashdot.org
knock those 5 down and 10 more will show up..
TSG asking the judge to stop groklaw would be an exercise in gross stupidiy and
time..
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: technoCon on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:27 AM EST |
PJ conjectures: I suspect that SCO may be working up to asking the judge to make
Groklaw stop covering the case or to restrict our coverage. That may be why they
keep insisting, falsely, that Groklaw is sponsored by IBM.
---
I am confused by the power that judges hold. I presume that that 1st amendment
thing binds judges, too. Can a judge order that CNN or MSNBC or the like stop
covering the Michael Jackson case? If Groklaw is a wholly owned subsidiary of
IBM, then I can see how the judge can order IBM to order Groklaw to shut up.
Conversely, if Groklaw is independent, as I believe, what is to prevent Groklaw
from ignoring the judge?
Since SCO is claiming some encumberance upon software that I continually use,
doesn't that make me an interested party to these procedings? Doesn't that make
every Linux user?
I am also confused by "class action" suits. It appears that the class
of entities who work on and use Linux are being injured by SCO's allegations of
IP ownership. The specific nature of those damages are hard to quantify, but I
believe the creativity and cognitive powers of the Open Source community could
come up with something.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:32 AM EST |
I guess we can find someone in Germany in no time hosting your page if you run
in any trouble ...
:-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: piskozub on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:36 AM EST |
| I do not really believe that any judge will try to override the first amendment.
Even if (s)he tries, it can only be about one specific trial and SCO has already
five.
Anyway, the next thing Darl would try is to gag finance.yahoo.com and
other stock market websites to post SCOX quotes. After all it is probably SCO's
IP and anyway no one should see that the stock plunged today through the
psychological $10.00 barrier:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/
bc?s=SCOX&t=1d
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tintak on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:39 AM EST |
If the court did shut you (us?) down, would an email newsletter be a possibility
to keep the ball rolling? How far could they go in legally suppressing you/us?
You have my email address. Feel free to use it.
---
'it is literally impossible' for SCO to itself provide
direct proof' Mark J. Heise 02/06/04[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:41 AM EST |
This is the clearest and most obvious bunch of scams I
have ever seen. (another word came to mind, but no
swearing)
We can't talk about it. We have a public and well
orchestrated campaign of intimidation. But we just can't
talk about our evidence because a judge told us not to.
Just send us a cheque.
Does anyone know what the judge said? Can it apply to
other cases? I would really like to know what the judge
would say about this use of her words.
It was too convenient. Any time anyone had a sticky
question, they said we can't discuss it because of what
the judge said.
No wonder they want this site shut down. Anyone reading
their actual words would ignore them or laugh in their
faces.
Derek [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mossc on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:41 AM EST |
Operator: Brian Skiba, Deutsche Bank.
Skiba: And perhaps for
Mark here, and I know you don't want to comment extensively on this, but it
would be fair to say that it's been a long time since Judge Wells has responded
back from post-SCO providing materials to IBM to, in effect mandate that IBM
return the favor, if you will, and put the AIX source code up and basically make
it available for you guys? I think it's something that the world anticipated
being measured in days, and now it's already been weeks. I'm just wondering
whether it's possible to get any kind of read on why that time frame has been so
long? And just as a followup to that, if we can get any color on why the
end-user lawsuit against AutoZone basically was 3.5 months in the making? And
should we anticipate that each, there will be subsequent suits faster, or
whether . . .How we should take a read on that?
Brian is
interpreting the legal situation in the best possible light for SCO. Maybe
trying to support his $45 price target.....
Chuck
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:46 AM EST |
"Our copyright claims relate to core operating system functionality of
essential root structure and sequence of UNIX System V that was used in the
design of Linux in the categories defined in our complaint."
Didn't they say in court, and in fact withdraw their claim against IBM, that
they couldn't find any System V code directly copied in Linux? Weren't they
supposed to turn over a list of all code in Linux they claim rights to? Hello!
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:46 AM EST |
This just occurred to me:
The fact that CANOPY forced SCOsource licenses down CA's throat when they
settled a lawsuit/dispute with CENTER 7
is proof (or at least admissible evidence in red hat and IBM cases) that Yarro
and Canopy are directly involved in directing the affairs of SCO.
CA had no dispute with SCO
It begins to look more like McBride is indeed just a puppet following orders in
a larger cabal. No wonder he can never shut his mouth. He has no real power.
He swaggers around like the captain of the pirate ship while the real captain
gives him orders from below deck.
In terms of "Piercing the corporate veil" We have thus far only had
Yarro's statements of support for the SCO/IBM lawsuit. This is much more
damning evidence that Canopy has its filthy hands deep in the SCO litigations
Joshua Clayton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:46 AM EST |
A lot of money is at stake, and the viciousness of SCO and it's supporters is no
surprise. What you are doing is historical and great. Keep it up. You have real
people behind you who really appreciate what you are doing for all of us and our
future.
Like Winston Churchill once said in a speach, "Never give up, never give
up, never give up, never give up, ...". That was his whole speach.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:47 AM EST |
I read eariler that the poster thought SCO was a bully. I had been thinking the
same thing. It reminded me of when I met Darl, quite a few years ago. I was
singularly unimpressed - he was short and did not have a presence demanding
respect. I believe these are necessary qualities in creating a bully.
But bullies can be stopped. Either by sending them to the principal's office;
confronting them; or exposing them. In this case, I believe that they have been
confronted and exposed. Their underhanded funding probably has been stopped,
and future pigeons will be less willing - their claims to the contrary
notwithstanding (they have been exposed). PJ is holding their feet to the fire
(they have been confronted). Finally, they will soon be sent to the Penguin's
office.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:50 AM EST |
Here in Scappoose, Oregon, tehre is a restaurant that uses it's readerboard for
interesting quotes. The latest I think applies here:
"When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty."
GrueMaster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:51 AM EST |
... could losing more money in the current year than you did last year be
described as "shoring up the balance sheet".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:52 AM EST |
i don't think groklaw can claim credit for the current dive.
we have been saying the same thing for the past year. they never listened
before.
the owners of SCOX stock have been getting their information from the mainstream
press since day one. now, the mainstream press have finally started to question
the TSG PressReleases and other hog wash.
groklaw's contribution has been to supply the press with a consistant record of
facts as they occured. it has just taken this long for the mainstream press to
truely take advantage of the resource.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: k4_pacific on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:56 AM EST |
After 50 minutes of trading, SCOX volume has already reached 120% of its average
daily volume and the price is down almost 9% to $9.34 per share. It seems like
its been doing this for several days now, but is off to a particularly fast
start today. I think it is only a matter of a few weeks before investors start
using their SCOX share certificates as outhouse wallpaper.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:00 AM EST |
"I suspect that SCO may be working up to asking the judge to make Groklaw
stop covering the case or to restrict our coverage. That may be why they keep
insisting, falsely, that Groklaw is sponsored by IBM."
Really? Should SCOG actually attempt something so ludicrous then two issues
leap to the forefront. The first is protected speech. Does a website fall
under the protections of clause three of the First Amendment? If so, and here
is the second issue, what other, if any, protections does the owner or operator
of a website have?
Now, if memory serves me correctly, I believe that back in the early to mid
1990's, in the original ACLU suit against the federal government [ACLU v. Reno
(?)] [the Communication Decency Act], the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that:
-- 1. the Internet is considered protected speech and;
-- 2. the owner/operator of a website is [basically] afforded the same
protections as a news reporter.
Hence, if I am indeed correct then SCOG has a very long row to hoe in order to
convince a judge to issue a gag order or any order which would restrict the free
and unfettered discussion of issues which affect or are of interest to people.
Justice Brandeis, writing for the majority in Whitney v. California (274 U.S.
357 (1927)), made some very telling remarks pertaining to issues revolving
around the First Amendment.
krp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:01 AM EST |
| Not long now. The three-month 20-day moving average (MA) has already crashed
through the 200-day MA, and now the 50-day MA
is about to do the same. How long can the longs hold on now without getting
severely burned?? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: s21mag on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:02 AM EST |
It wasn't until RIAA ultimately launched a series of lawsuits
against end user
copyright violators that the community-at-large became
fully educated regarding
the liabilities associated with
using copyrighted materials without providing
remuneration
to the copyright owner.
...emphasis mine
It seems that
there is another similarity between SCOG and the RIAA, misrepresenting the
facts.
The RIAA's suite, AIUI, was not about people having
downloaded music on their systems
but having it available for
upload, two very different things.
This is a point that several
people have made about Linux users, that even if there is System V code
in
Linux (there isn't), the end user is not in violation of copyright law until
he/she distributes it.
As several here have pointed out, the end
user lawsuites are not about the end user using tainted
Linux, but about
(alleged) contract violations. SCOG will just find/create some angle to tie the
Linux name to the suit.
---
L. W. Yost
Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Pop69 on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:03 AM EST |
I find it interesting that SCO are complaining about a site that only compiles
information that is a matter of public record anyway.
The only thing Groklaw does is makes all the information available in one handy
place along with providing a focus for people to analyse and comment on that
information.
Long may it continue :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardcode57 on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:05 AM EST |
The accusations that IBM are leaking stuff to Groklaw is actually very revealing
about the SCO midset.
IBM is very straight, and it wouldn't occurr to them or their lawyers to leak
correspondence. Their kind of company has to be like Caesar's wife. On the
other hand, that someone would perform a tactical leak is the first thing that
occurs to SCO as a source for a letter.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jan on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:07 AM EST |
"We ... project our ongoing operating expenses for the UNIX division will
continue to decrease in future quarters."
Skimping on enhancements, development, patches, support...
Hell, even if you love and are loyal to SCO Unix, staying on an effectively
orphaned/marginalized OS is a foolish way to bet your business.
---
Non sum iurisconsultus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:16 AM EST |
I keep seeing people talk about some limit at which SCO may be forced to pay
Baystar back. I'm not sure that is the case, but I pulled this out of the filing
that changed the classification of Baystar's stock:
"If the Closing Sales Price of the Common Stock is less than $10.50 (as
adjusted to reflect any stock dividends, distributions, combinations,
reclassifications and other similar transactions effected by the Corporation in
respect to its Common Stock) 50% of the Conversion Price for at least twenty
(20) consecutive trading days, the Corporation shall have the right to redeem
any shares of Series A-1 A Preferred Stock (on a fully diluted basis without
giving effect to the limitations set forth in Article XIV.B) then outstanding at
price per share of Series A-1 A Preferred Stock equal to the Face Amount plus
all accrued and unpaid Dividends thereon through the closing date of such
redemption."
By my read, yesterday (March 9th) was day one. The stock has gone down
significantly today, might stay there might now, who knows. But today included,
if the stock prices continues to close below $10.50/share, SCO can redeem the
preferred shares at the equivalent common share value.
Price was $9.40 and holding atlast check 11:00am EST. Down about 8% overall on
the day so far.
Not sure what that means for them exactly. But here it is anyway.
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST |
the situation you describe is essentially one for the
legislative branch
(Congress) to decide, not the courts. It falls under the category of "tort
reform," which is one of those areas that has been under unceasing windbaggage
in the Congress for at least a decade with no action other than the publishing
of various unread committee reports.
Judging by action in the
various states (particularly, say, TX), anything identified as "tort reform" is
likely to increase rather than decrease barriers to access to the courts for
small players.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST |
Man... that phone-cutting-out-on-me-during-an-important-answer trick is the
oldest one in the book! Anyone else imagine Darl with a towel wrapped around
the microphone, gradually backing away while he spoke, big grin on his face?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I loved it! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 02:21 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:20 AM EST |
Chances are litigation directed at silencing Groklaw would fail.
But it would take years and maybe as much as $500,000 in legal fees to fight the
battle. The mere chance that one could face this type of financial disaster can
intimidate.
Does this sound familiar?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:23 AM EST |
I believe that Groklaw is safe from a request from SCO to stop posting court
documents and commentary. As I see it, there are two protections:
First: the court documents and other doucments posted are public - therefore
there can be no restriction or limitation on their publication, regardless of
the media.
Second: Perhaps most important, is the issue of free speech. Groklaw is not
posting inflammatory speech (think KKK advocating killing someone), so her
speech is unconditionally protected. The court case previously mentioned said
the judge "preferred" that the info not land on the internet in
near-real-time. A far cry from saying you can't!
IANAL, just my opinion, etc., etc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:39 AM EST |
If I ever get around to shooting a documentary on this whole deal sometime in
the future, my first question to PJ would be:
So, how does it feel to be a thorn in the side of evil doers? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:39 AM EST |
Interesting isn't it. SCO goes to the media and broadcasts their
allegations loudly to everybody. However whenever anyone
posts any verifyiable facts - it is a case of anti-SCO activsts
spreading falsehoods. If asks them about any facts - it is a
question of we can't talk about that, we can't identify any code
etc.
If ever anything smelled of a legal scam this is it, and Boise's
lawfirm seems to be in it up to their necks including benefiting
from the stock price.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:40 AM EST |
Content of an email I sent to Bob Mims relating to his correction in the Salt
Lake Tribune:
Thank you for the correction/additional information provided in the Wednesday,
10 March 2004 edition.
It is gratifying to see journalists with integrity, especially when it comes to
reporting the truth as opposed to just 'reporting'.
I thought your article explained The SCO Group's mis-representation very well,
with the sole exception of the last line of the story;
"Tuesday's development: SCO Group attorneys may be partially responsible
for a leak of confidential information in the legal dispute."
As your story above the last line points out, the SCO Group attorneys were
ENTIRELY responsible for the information not being handled in a confidential
manor, and The SCO Group (TSG) attempting to blame IBM, or groklaw web site was,
if provided to the press as it appears to have been by TSG, either malicious
disinformation or, at a minimum, culpable negligence on the part of TSG. Having
followed this case for a while, I have my inclination of which end of the
continuum I believe TSG occupies.
In addition, I appreciate your giving Pamela Jones a chance to rebut TSG's
repeated assertion (without presenting facts or support of any kind) that the
web site groklaw.com is in any way partisan to the legal case - some of the
posters (including myself at times) ARE most definitely partisan and openly
critical of TSG, but the web site is dedicated to discovering the truth and
reveling mis-information or dis-information from either party in the "SCO v
Open Source" case. It is easy to think badly of TSG when the sheer volume
of incorrect "facts" and illogical legal "logic" is
recognized and compared to the incisive, polished operations of IBM, Novell, and
RedHat in response to the attacks that are being directed against them.
Thank you for your time and willingness to get the truth before the public.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:41 AM EST |
SCO gives the five reasons for choosing their Unix. The fifth is that it is
legally unencumbered. Is this true? It should be true, but I wonder based upon
the idea that Novell withheld certain copyrights. Of course, Novell is not going
around sueing everybody. But the question is interesting: who owns the Unix that
SCO is selling? Isn't it so that SCO has a license to sell it as their own, but
that Novell holds copyrights to it? What would happen if Novell and SCO got into
a tiff (maybe they are in one); does Novell have the rights to yank the SCO
license?
Food for thought. Fight fire....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:42 AM EST |
If the U.S. is no longer a free speech country, could someone compile a list of
countries that do allow free speech?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:45 AM EST |
Bray: It has nothing to do, then, with any assertion that they are, for
example, misappropriating your intellectual property by using Linux or adding
code to the Linux operating system? Does Linux have anything to do with this one
at all?
McBride: It does relate to it in that to the extent that they
have taken . . .they have had access to our source code, and then they have in
fact imported that knowledge or that code or in other ways broken their contract
rights on the UNIX source code license as they have developed or grown or
contributed to Linux, then that would absolutely create a
violation.
SCO's perspective is absurd here. Once a customer of
SCO they can never port their software to another operating system because they
are tainted or know too much to ever leave SCO? Think of the practical
implications of this concept. Microsoft sues all of it's customers that have
taken them up on their Shared Source Initiative if those customers ever
switch to another operating system, and as a result, port their own software to
that different operating system?
SCO is taking the perspective that porting
your software to a different operating system (than theirs) can make you liable
for monetary damages. Absurd.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:52 AM EST |
So long as SCO is not specific about what IP is in Linux, they are perfectly
free to sell licenses to cover the 'what if there is IP in Linux' situation.
It's an insurance policy against them suing. Taken to task to demonstrate the IP
in Linux is NOT what they want to do. So long as it is an open question, they
will start chipping away at the world - auto industry first, then ? stock
brokers.... The SCO line is always 'you'd have to rip out so many lines from
linux and rewrite them, that it would take for ever.'
It is the community's job to bring them to task and clear the source from
question. Not an easy job - but hey, we're up to it.
So, can we sue to clear the source?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 11:53 AM EST |
I think it's more likely that the judge(s) would seal the court record, and
Groklaw would be left alone.
Of course, it's a little late for that, since Groklaw has already published the
court record up to now. And it wouldn't apply to SEC filings, etc.
But the court record could be sealed for anything that happens from now on.
Perhaps Internet sites outside the U.S. should be mirroring Groklaw's archives
in case the U.S. abolishes its Bill of Rights.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST |
I haven't received any on Linux or SCO or Red Hat or Mandrake since 9 March
10:00 AM. It's highly unusual.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST |
Monster has a pertinant job:-
Qualified candidate will need to recover root
passwords and
change them, plus store securely for future use if need
be.
Candidate needs to be able to understand file structure &
applications
running on machine(s) & determine if it is possible
for the contractor to
support the systems until June of this
year.
Must have good
experience with SCO Unix.
Sounds like the rats are diving off the
sinking ships [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fitter on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:04 PM EST |
There will be no record of how this belief came into existence, and I don't
think it matters. For me, the notion came to me (out of thin air) in the day or
so after the conference call. SCOG is trying to link Groklaw to IBM. No matter
how bizarre and wrong they might be about that, they've never let 'bizarre and
wrong' prevent them from trying something goofy with the legal system. I'm just
guessing that I'm not the only one who had a light bulb go off.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: be2weenthelines on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:07 PM EST |
I'm with you talks_to_birds, the sociology of the Groklaw phenomenon is
fascinating. As for this particular meme, I think its neither surprising, nor
difficult to trace (nor particularly pervasive).
PJ said "I suspect that SCO may be..." and gave evidence for her
suspicions. I suppose, implicitly, the fact that she even mentioned them
suggests she thinks there is at least a remote possibility that SCO might
succeed in persuading the judge to attempt some sort of restrictions. I don't
really see how that could happen, but she is undoubtedly more familiar with the
tortuous twists of the US legal system than I am (or most of us).
So, not surprisingly, some of the community takes the possible threat too
seriously, some (perhaps including you and I) not seriously enough, and some
(like Goldilocks) just right. In fact, I would say the consensus opinion is,
"Not likely to happen. Extremely unlikely, in any case, to be effective;
here's how we could respond." I'm happy that those so inclined have
already outlined possible responses even though I think they're highly unlikely
to be neccesary. All in all, I think its a wonderfully healthy communal
response to a low probability threat.
be2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ruidh on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:09 PM EST |
Well, if you read the actual text above, PJ clearly states that "she
thinks". Now you know the source.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LvilleDebugger on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:17 PM EST |
Here's a protocol we could use with the existing Groklaw
setup to get
documents transcribed, that could take the
load off of PJ. It has the advantage
of being completely transparent, in that all of the communication necessary will
occupy a single thread in Groklaw, where it can have many eyeballs look at
it.
Call for Volunteer Coordinators.
1. PJ
posts a story with a link to a document that she'd like transcribed.
2.
In addition to the "Updates and URLs" and "Corrections" threads, PJ starts a
"Call for Volunteers" thread.
3. Volunteer coordinators, from the pool
of registered (hence contactable) Groklaw users, and who are willing to tackle
the coordination of this particular job reply to this thread stating their
willingness to do so, and a time frame (timezone?) in which they believe they
can complete their task (so we can age out offers where the volunteer drops off
the face of the earth.)
4. PJ goes down the list of replies, starting
with the first reply, until she sees a name she recognizes and trusts. She then
replies to the thread herself, making the designation of volunteer coordinator
for this task. In a perfect world, PJ is now off the hook until the task is
complete.
Call for Volunteers
5. The volunteer
coordinator now picks up the thread. It is the task of the volunteer coordinator
to break the task into appropriately-sized portions, and to present a list to
the thread with some sort of unique identifier for each portion of the task. For
example "GL20040310-1-Part1" for the first Groklaw job of March 10, 2004, part
one, and so on.
6. Having witnessed the designation of volunteer
coordinator in the thread, and the presentation of the list of subtasks for the
job, would-be volunteers post replies to the thread, designating which portion
of the task they are willing to complete. In cases where two or more replies are
received designating the same subtask, the first to be appear in the comments
could take priority. Offers to perform subtasks should appear with an estimate
of the time of completion, so we can age out stale offers.
7. The
volunteer coordinator monitors the thread until likely candidates for each
subtask appear. The volunteer coordinator replies to these volunteer comments by
designating a primary and an alternate volunteer.
Primary
Subtask Volunteer
8. It is the job of the primary volunteer to
take the task as far as they can within the time estimate provided by the
volunteer, and to provide status updates to the comment thread in which they
were designated as the primary, until the task is
complete.
Alternate Subtask Volunteer
9. It is
the job of the alternate volunteer to monitor the subtask comment thread for
status updates from the primary volunteer, off-loading the volunteer
coordinator.
10. If a subtask is late (according to the time estimate
provided by the primary volunteer) the alternate will take over the subtask,
doing two things:
10.1 Notifying the comment thread, describing the
alternate's takeover of the subtask (it would also seem prudent to send messages
to the primary subtask volunteer and the volunteer coordinator) and issuing a
call for a new alternate.
10.2 The alternate becomes the primary,
performing the functions in paragraph 8.
Designation of a New
Alternate Subtask Volunteer
11. The volunteer coordinator will
designate a new alternate to the subtask, if necessary, whenever an alternate
takes over a subtask and hence becomes the primary volunteer for that
subtask.
Completion of Tasks
12. The volunteer
coordinator will have designated how completed tasks are to be submitted: either
as messages or as comment postings. The volunteer coordinator may have
designated another volunteer for the final assembly, or he or she may do it
themselves. Proofreading could be handled by the inclusion of special subtasks
for proofreading and/or editing.
13. The volunteer coordinator
coordinates the transmission of the final product to PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:20 PM EST |
By reasoning that Groklaw is related to IBM based on the proximity of an address
to IBM's worldwide headquarters....
Well then ECT News Network (publisher of Linux Insider) MUST have been created
solely to be an SCO studge based on the fact that it was started around May 2003
-- pretty close to the start of the IBM lawsuit :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:20 PM EST |
Finally, as a quick update to our existing case against IBM, we continue
to look forward to having our case heard in a Utah courtroom. That is currently
scheduled for April 11, 2005. We believe that a jury will come to the same
conclusion we have, namely that the rule of law provides protection to SCO's
intellectual property. We are currently continuing the discovery phase of that
case and look forward to this case going to a jury trial.
Isn't there
an old legal axiom something to the effect that if you're innocent you want a
judge, and if you're guilty you want a jury? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:22 PM EST |
I was just thinking that SCO has a legal war-chest; however, since they are
losing money and have no real future for real business enterprise - how many
employees does SCO have? What other expenses do they have? How long can this
war-chest keep them going. Recent media change (Rob En-DUH-earl et al excluded)
in SCO reporting should ensure that they will not be making any LEGAL income.
How long can they pay the bills and keep their attonreys happy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:27 PM EST |
| Has everyone noticed how SCO's stock is behaving this week? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: afore on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:31 PM EST |
Looks like Bruce Perens is also getting into the act. Here is a link to a
Newsforge story:
HREF="http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/03/10/1158216&mode=threa
d">http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/03/10/1158216&mode=thread
A>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Avenger on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:35 PM EST |
McBride: We don't have any outstanding lawsuits against us in Australia right
now.
Actually, this is true. the ACCC (sp?) isn't a court. It is a kind of trade
supervisor institution.
And, I really don't have too much first hand information on this 'case'.
On the other hand, chances are high, they will run into some lawsuit in
Australia and Europe.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: moogy on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:44 PM EST |
"Our copyright claims relate to core operating system
functionality of essential root structure and sequence
of UNIX System V that was used in the design of Linux
in the categories defined in our complaint."
SCOG keeps saying this but these are not covered by
copyright law. Where's the copyright infringements?
We have yet to see a case wherein SCOG has claimed
copyright infringement on the Linux source code. They
say it a lot to the press but not in any court.
Some people claim tht SCOG is plain crazy. I fully
disagree with that and believe they understand this
all to well, and are criminal, and not crazy.
---
Mike Tuxford - irc.fdfnet.net #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:48 PM EST |
Imagine the precident it would create. You'd have all sorts of groups, ACLU,
EFF etc. hopping all over if it were even thought of.
There is likely not much case law in the area of the "digital press"
or "digital public meetings". Any judge would have to be VERY VERY
whary to attempt such an action.
Likewise, you'd have to silence SCO, regular press (good luck), not release any
court documents, close the courthouse, etc.. etc..
And for what. We all know that if Groklaw were shut down, we'd see many other
sites pop up immediately. It doesn't take long to install a blog (finding a
good hosting company is another issue).
It might also be PR suicide for SCO to attempt this, as it would only show their
mean side, and draw even more attention to Groklaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GoMMeR on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:50 PM EST |
"Our counterparts on the IBM front have convenient third-party
websites that promote their cause."
It sure sucks to be on
the wrong side of the truth, doesn't it. It's funny Darl is complaining of
Groklaw now, since he and his co. have been playing the mainstream media as
their own personal puppets for a very long time.
"Ohh no, they're arming
themselves with the truth and it's spreading! We must stop this, it's not
fair!"
Whatever...
Interesting information, though. It most
certainly shows Darl and co. have made a deliberate attempt to discredit Linux
with these statements. They are trying their best to make the AutoZone and DC
suits seem as though they are directly tied to Linux - something we all know
very clearly to be false and misleading information.
I think Darl might
find he could in fact have legitimate supporters who might create websites to
support them if they were not so obviously making false statements to support
his/their cause.
So far, this whole fiasco rings as the previews you
see before a movie. So far, I'm really sick of watching the previews and now I'm
ready to see the real movie. I'm not sure, but I'm willing to guess the movie is
going to be a criminal prosecution story.
Now, if only some incredibly
intelligent judge would tell Darl and Co. they will face criminal charges for
making false and/or misleading statements to the public -- ohh that would be
some nice icing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JustFree on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 12:51 PM EST |
Thank you PJ. You provide some much information, that it is hard to read
everything.
From my quick read. It seems that there is a dispute on who ultimately controls
UNIX. I believe that it is between 3 parts, SCO, Open Group, and Novell. With
most of the control shared between the Open Group and Novell. If company A does
not explicitly sell company B something, then company B does not own it.
Period!
I find it hard to understand how SCO can say what they do. Novell, the Open
Group, Red Hat and all have been quiet, except for CA who had to clarify the
deception that SCO was spreading about them.
Darl McBribe is not Steve Job or Bill Gates.
Blake Stowell is not Tony Roberts.
Free speech: is the freedom to speak your mind without being punished for it.
I know McBride and Stowell have missed the point of what Linux is from day one
of the IBM law suit.
Groklaw embeds what makes Linux. We all have an invested interest in the Linux
operating systems and Groklaw provides us with this service. SCO wants to reap
the benefits of volunteers. SCO should look in the mirror first before bashing
Groklaw and Pamela Jones. Their dishonest dance is immoral and wrong.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:05 PM EST |
Cornett: Do you have any evidence that AutoZone used SCO libraries in Linux?
Darl: Let me first start by ..[inaudible].. that ...[inaudible]...
Cornett: Huh? I didn't hear a word you said.
Darl: Yes, ...[inaudible]... evidence ...[inaudible]....
Cornett: Huh? I still didn't hear a word you said.
Darl: [tap tap] Is this thing on? [tap tap]
Heh heh!! Classic SCO response!!
Void[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: trickykid on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:08 PM EST |
Shouldn't this:
<i>"Since that time we've been successful in re-establishing SCO in
the marketplace as the owner of the UNIX operating system and as a leading
provider of UNIX-based technology and solutions.
During 2003 we worked to improve and to strengthen SCO's financial foundation.
As a result of our efforts, the company's cash position has increased from $6.6
million to $68.5 million during the past year. We've remained debt-free, and the
Company reported net income and generated positive cash from operations for the
first time in SCO's history last fiscal year."</i>
Really should be said with something like this from Darl:
<i>"Since that time we've been successful in re-establishing SCO in
the marketplace as the owner of the UNIX System V and as the only provider of
System V IP code in which we are solely only making money off of our lawsuits
currently.
During 2003 we worked hard with our lawyers to improve and to strengthen SCO's
financial foundation by suing IBM with false accusations and without proof thus
far. As a result of our efforts, the company's cash position has increased from
$6.6 million to $68.5 million during the past year since Microsoft has stepped
in to use our company to fight off their biggest threat. We've remained
debt-free cause our lawyers were kind enough to not only take cash but some SCOX
stock as well, and the Company reported net income and generated positive cash
from operations for the first time in SCO's history last fiscal year because the
only thing we have is some copyrights of System V code and cannot produce
anything else worthy of consumers even thinking of buying to use. You can count
on us to tbe the first company to solely operate off lawsuits in the coming next
century if we succeed."
Cheers...
-drew[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:16 PM EST |
I'm having trouble with this - How could a judge force Groklaw to stop
CONSOLIDATING AND POSTING information freely available on the internet, and
court records?
First amendment comes to mind. Maybe SCO should petition the court to stop
making records available?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:16 PM EST |
Or, if you are of a more conserative bend, and sound judge of a more strict
constructionist bend, who terrified liberals so much that they went to any and
all lengths to demonize him and prevent his approval.
In general it now applies to any such attempt to demonize a Presidential
appointee, be it by either side of the political aisle (though each side will
claim THEY never do it, they only go after bad appointees on sound grounds, its
the other side that does all the evil partisan stuff).
However, either conservative or liberal, I think we can both agree that the
nonsense that SCO is trying to pull deserves to be soundly quashed. (Not to
mention expunged, mutilated, burned to the ground, and the remains sown with
Salt).
Dale (who already gets enough spam)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:19 PM EST |
| From the second Tribune article regarding the CA memo leak:
> "I
can't point fingers. We don't believe our attorneys are responsible for this
[but] we don't know for sure who put it into the public database," Stowell said.
"It is SCO's contention that when this information was provided, it was supposed
to have been done in confidence -- otherwise, it would have been disclosed," he
added.
And if it hadn't been disclosed, then would CA have ever heard
about it, and had the chance to refute SCO's claim?
Stowell is just upset,
because their attempt to inject a lie -- the implication that CA supports SCO's
position -- into the court record was thwarted.
From the
teleconference:
> [McBride:] Our counterparts that we're in battle
against here have convenient third-party websites that promote their cause,
whereas we've basically had the responsibility to tell our story
ourselves.
Yes, and why do you think that is, Mr. McBride?
Have you
noticed that Microsoft has the same problem? Microsoft has to pay for their
publicity, not to mention their "friends." Pro-Linux sites, on the other hand,
spring up all over the place, as voluteer efforts. Likewise, there is no
shortage of posters ready to support Linux, and refute Microsoft's
claims.
The reason is obvious: Microsoft and SCO, through their own actions,
have become associated with cheating, dishonesty, destruction, and greed (the
unwarranted kind, based on a desire for that which is unearned).
And Linux,
by its open nature, is seen as a means for achieving more honesty and fair
competition within the computing industry.
It's quite simple, Mr. McBride;
Most people want to be on the side of good.
Now it is possible to use lies
to fool the people into supporting the wrong side, but usually only for a while.
Time, analysis, and education have a way of sorting things out in the long
run.
So you just have to face it, Mr. McBride. You're on the wrong side.
History, and morality, are against you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: deList on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:23 PM EST |
Since Groklaw was officially mentioned as a source of information by IBM, then
SCO must work to discredit Groklaw however they can ... just like they would try
to do to any other material source IBM might produce.
While these actions are not pleasent, they are expected. The end result is that
they just stir up more dedication to Groklaw, which provides more diligent work
for their opposition.
WAY TO GO SCO! WAY TO GO GROKLAW!
---
"The problem with SCO is not them misunderstanding. It is daring anyone to call
them on their misinterpretation." - Anon, 1/13/2004[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:36 PM EST |
I do not think they will attempt to gag groklaw (let alone succeed).
The real significance is that they are attacking the display of their own public
documents, e.g. Heise's letter to IBM.
Is this a threat?
Well it could be, and probably is intended to undermine groklaw, but IMHO
probably not in the long run, or perhaps even the short run.
As a PR strategy, it's a busted flush.
Most any journalist/publication, will likely allow Groklaw some kind of response
- because even if they believe SCO's attack on Groklaw, they will want to
"catch PJ out".
PJ is not like IBM, she doesn't have any particular reason to keep her mouth
shut.
So the PR strategy will blow up in their faces, see Salt Lake Tribune for
example (even if Mims' "correction" is STILL incomplete and perhaps
even grudging, it nevertheless leaves egg all over SCO's face)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:42 PM EST |
Mims' article says the SCO vs IBM suit is up to $50 billion. When did it jump
again?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Budgreen on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:43 PM EST |
where does the open group stand on all this? I think we all know, but they need
to speak up! I would imagine they could get an injunction to stop SCO Group from
claiming ownership of (all right and title to) UNIX quite quickly. I would love
to see this happen, It ould help themselves in defending the Trademark but also
knock down SCO Group's cridibility at the same time.
---
Hutz: Well, your Honor, we've got plenty of hersay and conjecture, those are
*kinds* of evidence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick Bridge on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:53 PM EST |
It seems quite clear that their future lies in convincing current Unix
licensees that within their Unix agreement (with AT&T or Novell etc) is a
clause which would prevent them using/copying etc software that was similar to
Unix (at least as similar as GNU/Linux is - a "work alike" if you
will).
Some companies will always back down when an apparent threat occurs,
and Darl already characterises the SCOSource licenses as "insurance".
Such
pratice should require up-front evidence - why can the legal system
(here) not stop them from continuing without it?
Or as Yoda might say: "SCO
Group continuing without evidence the legal system cannot stop, why hmmm?" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ErichTheWebGuy on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:56 PM EST |
I am not a stockbroker, and I know very, VERY little about the market, and why
things work the way they do. Can anyone help me understand why their stock price
has fallen so far this week?
It opened Monday morning at almost 12.00, and has been sliding ever since. Last
time I checked it was 9.30. Again, I know nothing about the market, but that
seems pretty drastic.
Could it be that people are finally wising up?
---
Striving daily to be RFC-2550 compliant[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 01:59 PM EST |
It just occurred to me that Boies might have seen right from the start that the
SCO case would fail, SCO's own product line had failed so the only thing of
value in the company is the Microsoft slush money. So he struck a deal to get
20% of whatever happens. It's actually in his best interest to have the SCO
case fail immediately so there is more of the MS money to steal a piece of.
Is this not plausible?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 02:03 PM EST |
| Found on fark. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 02:20 PM EST |
Greenmeier: So them not returning that certification sent up
a red flag to SCO, is that what we are talking about here?
Heise:
Yes.
McBride: More than a red flag. It created a contract violation
in and of itself. They have a contract requirement to, in fact, certify, and so
at a first pass it's a pretty simple contract violation. Then as we go
through discovery and we go through the process of finding out what is going on
over there, we will see if there are further
violations.
IANAL, But Darl seems to be publicly stating
that he is initiating a (trivial) lawsuit in order to find "further violations"
through the discovery process. This is commonly referred to as a "fishing
expedition." I hope that this transcript get the attention of the judge who
will (should) make sure that the discovery is limited to the case as they
presented it.
(Hopefully) In a future court room...
Judge:
Did DC reply to your request?
(Some McBride): No, and we'd like all
of the code that DC has ever written, impounding of all their servers, all of
Linux's source code, and every email that every developer ever
sent.
Judge: A little fishing, eh? Discovery DENIED. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 02:20 PM EST |
Wasn't that nice of Darl to confirm that this is just a fishing expedition. I
doubt that will stop the FUDsters though.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rmorrish on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 02:33 PM EST |
I had to summarize who owns what for a colleague. Hopefully I got it close.
The current SCO is in fact The SCO Group (TSG), formerly known as Caldera (a
Linux distributor). TSG spokesmen constantly attempt to blur the line between
themselves and the old SCO, now known as Tarantella. Much mention is made by TSG
of Novell's sale of certain UNIX assets (noteably not the UNIX trademark, which
is owned by the Open Group) to old SCO, but never of the subsequent sale of a
different set of assets from old SCO to Caldera. The upshot is that no-one knows
what TSG owns, not even TSG, but that doesn't stop them claiming it has been
stolen.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 02:36 PM EST |
For one thing, authors of the kernel code, which can be distributed
only under the GPL, have a need and, I think, a right to know who takes a
potentially conflicting SCO "IP" license. I fail to see how anyone can properly
assert a "right" to "confidentiality" if the goal or the result is to hide
violations of the license rights of others.
I agree. I think
authors of Kernel code should get together and sue anyone (EV1 for instance)
that takes out one of SCO's 'IP' licenses for Linux. Every company that does is
violating the rights of anyone that has contributed code to Linux under the GPL
by using, modifying, and distributing code under a different license. SCO's
license is incompatible with the GPL and if you use Linux under their license,
you forfeit your rights under the GPL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 02:46 PM EST |
McBride's comments were both pertinent and true. Unfortunately
the pertinent parts were not true and the true parts were not
pertinent.
Apologies to S. Johnson. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 02:48 PM EST |
"It doesn't matter what you believe. It only matters what you can
prove".
For the open source community and the lightning rod that Groklaw has become,
this whole SCO/IBM case gives reason for passion to argue in one's favor. If
SCO truly believes that IBM is piping information into Groklaw as a form of
using those passions to fight for IBM's cause in the public realm, and I do
think that does appear to be the case, then what must be done is to refocus
efforts and pre-emptively strike against such measures. If it is even possible
to remove the appearence of siding with IBM, regardless of how ridiculous it
seems, then it might be a good thing to consider.
Of course, this whole thing might be smoke and mirrors to get Groklaw to ponder
such scenarios and take such steps. A stalling tactic if you will. I think Mr.
McBride and company might of underestimated the community's power if he thinks
that can happen.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 03:00 PM EST |
According to the transcript, DaimlerChrysler aren't a current SCO customer,
"It's been years since we have had a relationship with AutoZone and a
similar situation with Daimler. What we're looking at that with these UNIX
license contracts, basically even though we don't have revenue coming in from
those right now, what we do have, like in the case of Daimler, is a requirement
that they keep those source code licenses upheld in terms of the restrictions on
confidentiality. And so that's what we're doing in that case."
In other words, if you EVER bought anything from SCO, or its predecessors, you
have to respond to their demand for certification.
No wonder the word is that DaimlerChrysler were rolling around on the floor with
laughter. Oh, and remind me to through out my free SCO mousepad.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 03:03 PM EST |
constantly running pieces penned by known PR flacks? I realize that the PR
industry is pretty careful about plausible deniability, but since Enderle has
been outed as having MS for a client (wonder which one of the Enderle 'Group'
services they bought), should not the ECT 'third party' sites (including the
hilariously named LinuxInsider) that run his paid propaganda be listed among
sites that promulgate SCO's side? They have quite a few sites in their little
cabal.
When Dikephobic Darl complains that SCO hasn't got 'third party'
sites backing him up, does this reality not reveal him to be lying?
In the
comments following the moronic eweek article by Rant for Rent Rob called 'SCO
should win', the ECT senior editor has stated that they will be disclosing these
types of arrangements more in the future, although he hilariously states that
Enderle says what he thinks 'no matter who is paying him'.
I would think that
this admission alone sinks Darl's battleship as far as any gagging of Groklaw is
concerned. The fact that the PR industry provides approximately 40% of the
'News' as we know it would indicate to me that the justice system in the U.S.
couldn't care less about media integrity anyhow.
As far as I can tell, the
only paid for opinions to be found on Groklaw are provided by the odious trolls
that plague the place like teenagers on March break.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DarlingMcBribe on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 03:16 PM EST |
The existence of this site is simply not fair to SCO!
I was merrily
BS-ing away to the press and media up until
the last court hearing, but now
Judge Wells has put a
restraining order on me, and even if I try not to care
about that, then my own lawyer tells me to shut up.
This is just
not fair ! ***stomping
feet***
All my enemies (IBM, the
linux hippies, Novell, RedHat,
our customers the end user who
do not pay
the protection money)
have their side of the story trumpeted on
GrokLaw which is
gaining popularity despite all my efforts. In the
meantime I have to shut up and nobody else spreads
my lies
my side of the story.
In the name of the first amendment, I
demand a
GrokSCO site to counter this one!
And don't you
dare taking my demands lightly! If I
don't get what I want, I'll sue you
all!
---
IANAL, IANAG, IARASC (I am running a software company)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: drh on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 03:54 PM EST |
"It wasn't until RIAA ultimately launched a series of
lawsuits against end user copyright violators that the
community-at-large became fully educated regarding the
liabilities associated with using copyrighted materials
without providing remuneration to the copyright owner."
My "education" surrounding the RIAA lawsuits has led to
the following conclusions:
1. The music industry has been artificially and illegally
inflating prices.
2. The music industry has been illegally controlling the
distribution channels.
3. The music industry has been illegally denying smaller
studios access to the market.
4. The music industry has been relying on re-hash instead
of innovation.
5. In the sale of a CD, the artist who created it sees
less than 5% of the money.
6. The RIAA has refused payment to the artists they
supposedly protect when collecting monies from their
lawsuits and related activities.
There is more, but all in a similar vein. Hence I have
concluded that the music industry should no longer be
supported. The artists, on the other hand, should get more
support, and we should have more artists.
As for newSCO, my "education" surrounding SCOSource has
led to the following conclusions:
1. Being a customer of newSCO leads to litigation by
newSCO against myself and my organization.
2. Being a former customer of anySCO leads to litigation
by newSCO against myself and my organization.
3. newSCO is no longer actively developing code, they are
actively developing lawsuits.
4. newSCO is seeking to charge money for code they did not
develop and do not support, nor will they in the future.
5. newSCO does not have, nor will offer in the future any
actual product or service. Why do they deserve to be paid
just to exist?
Again there is more, again in a similar vein. And again I
have concluded that SCO should no longer be supported.
Amazing what a little education will do, wouldn't you say
Darl?
---
Just another day...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: drh on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:02 PM EST |
I seriously doubt that the court can shut down Groklaw,
but SCO could make a lot of trouble, and hence PJ's
concern.
Mirroring is useful, but here is another suggestion:
A HOWTO on grokking the law.
Perhaps by posting a brief guide on how to search for
these documents ourselves, what sites to go to, etiquette,
etc. I creates a hydra effect, where cutting off the head
of the monster two more are created in it's place.
I would like to see something like this related to patents
as well.
---
Just another day...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:04 PM EST |
This is slightly OT, but I think it needs to be mentioned.
Microsoft is in trouble and is terrified of Linux. Why? They are an enormous
company with enormous cash reserves. They could easily buy a dozen other
industries, let alone develop other technologies.
The reason Microsoft is so scared of Linux is that they are a *phenomenally
undiversified company*. This is the big skeleton in the closet that MSFT
doesn't want anyone (especially investors) to see.
You see, back in the 1990s when all the bucks from MS-DOS and Windows were
rolling in, Microsoft could have done what many smart companies do and
diversified. They could have, for example, turned Visual Studio into a
cross-platform development kit for many OSes. They could have released Office
for many platforms. They could have gotten into the Internet business sooner
and in a bigger way. They could have expanded into consumer devices, made their
own brands of cell phones, added value to all sorts of things. They could have
gotten into embedded technologies, user interfaces for home devices, all kinds
of stuff. They could have *diversified*, and if they had then they would have a
large product portfolio of independent products that stood on their own.
Windows would just be one product in that portfolio: a user-friendly OS for
PC-compatible desktop computers.
Instead, they chose to turn Windows into this one big christmas-tree product and
*hang every other product in their portfolio off that one product*! This means
that Microsoft is now a one-trick pony. They are completely locked into
Windows. You think Windows locks other people in? Microsoft is the most locked
in of all! They've gotten into a situation where only one product drives the
sale of every other product that they have and accounts for some ungodly
percentage of their revenue (75% if I recall correctly). They cannot diversify
much now, since absolutely everything they do must add value to that one
product. Yet, Windows ir probably maxed out in the marketplace and new
technologies are emerging that could compete with it. What are they to do?
The answer is that they must do absolutely anything they can to guarantee that
that *one product* does not lose even the slightest amount of marketshare.
Because, if it does, then it takes everything else in their product line with
it! It's like being invested to the tune of billions in only one stock!
So they will lie, cheat, steal, and even compromise their ability to expand into
new markets all to shore up the market dominaince of one product. This is their
big flaw and their big weakness. If Windows starts to lose marketshare, even
slightly, it could cause an implosion in the value of the company and billions
of dollars in paper wealth could vanish overnight. They are so heavily
leveraged into that one product that they must do anything it takes to preserve
it's value.
Even risk the entire company by bankrolling barratry in violation of conspiracy
and anti-trust regulations.
Some have commented that Microsoft could not be directly and flagrantly
bankrolling SCO because it would just be too reckless. If you understand how
leveraged and undiversified they are, it makes complete sense. They are willing
to do anything at this point to lock in their Windows marketshare.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: malkerie1 on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:15 PM EST |
This call was so full of misinformation or outright lies by SCO that its
amazing. I guess they didn't expect anyone to actually read thier court
filings, or DMB has no idea what they say since he seems to be saying that they
are suing "linux users" becuase they are using the Linux OS.
I though some good questions were asked and badly sidestepped or badly answered.
Though it does seem that Judge Wells has told SCO to take it down a notch in
the press, which can only be a good thing.
In addition, i want to thank PJ again for providing this wonderful source for
information that is Groklaw. Since there is no other reliable timely source for
all this information.
I would also say that there is really no way that SCO could get Groklaw shut
down for any lenght of time. Freedom of Speech is almost considered sacred in
this country, and freedom of the press is defended zealously. Were anyone to
try and gag Groklaw the entire press/freedom of speech community would come to
the aid of this community. This includes leagal heavy hitters like the ACLU and
major press agencies and associations.
-Michael, USA
IANAL, IANEALS (I am not even a law student)
><>><>><>><>><>><>><
>><>><>><>><>
I See Penguins![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:19 PM EST |
The fact that SCO has alluded to Groklaw several times means that what we are
doing here is really getting to them. They realize the documents and analyses
published here are undermining their propaganda campaign. Lamlaw.com said that
SCO made a mistakewhen it launched the IBM suit in that it didn't realize that
groklaw would be arround to counter all its FUD.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dgetzin on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:25 PM EST |
CRN journalist Rooney was pretty tenacious in there:
Operator: Paula Rooney, CRN.
Rooney: I'm trying to narrow down the case against AutoZone. So, the copyright
claim has nothing to do with the Linux kernel per se, correct?
McBride: No, this does have to do with the Linux kernel.
Rooney: You said that the case is not specific to SCO shared libraries, that
it's a very general . . . to anyone using the operating system . . .
McBride: I'm saying anybody using Linux. I guess what I'm trying to say here is
a lot of people . . . I think we are trying to say. . . because there is the
fact that AutoZone has been a SCO UNIX user in the past, a OpenServer user until
a couple of years ago, that in the migration to Linux there could have been some
problems with the SCO shared libraries that would have been unique to a customer
using SCO moving to Linux. The case that was filed today was much broader than
that, and basically impacts anywhere the Linux kernel would be showing up in an
end-user environment.
Rooney: But you said it has to do with structural components that is tied to
pieces inside Linux.
McBride: And those would be kernel-related.
Rooney: But the components are those developed by AutoZone the customer?
McBride: No. Again, I guess the simple way to think of it is if you took the
case we filed against AutoZone yesterday and did a search and replace on the
name of an end user who we never had a relationship with but is running Linux,
that suit would pretty much hold up. It's going to be a little bit different
obviously, but in general the claims that we're making there are pervasive
throughout the end-user Linux community.
Rooney: But you are saying it's not the shared libraries, so what is the code in
question here?
McBride: It's all spelled out in the complaint, and it's pretty detailed to go
through right now. But there are a number of structural components as you read
through the complaint that you will see where those are.
Heise: Let me just interject for one moment. This is the precise type of
information that was specifically requested by the court to not go into. So it's
really just something that I want to caution Darl on that we just really don't
want to be getting into that kind of detail.
Rooney: It's the heart of the case, I think it's fair to ask the question on
what the code is.
McBride: Again, it's in the filing.
Rooney: Then you mentioned that there were specific programmers who acknowledge
violation. Who are these programmers?
Heise: Again, we're not getting into the witnesses in the case, the underlying
information of the case. It's not where we're going.
I have read that part of the complaint and I can't relate to what they are
saying - can the Groklaw team help Rooney (and me) with dismantling this
Copyright claim so SCO has more difficulty painting this as going after users of
Linux for Copyright violations. That general linkage is key to their (greatly
flawed) RIAA comparison they are using to scare (educate) the public[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:27 PM EST |
Jackson: The end-users suits that you're filing now, they seem to be
non-dependent upon the allegations that you made against Novell. Could you
comment?
Heise: I think that's an accurate statement. These cases
don't implicate the issues in Novell. And SCO is the owner of UNIX System V,
both the software sub-licensing agreements, the copyrights and everything
related thereto, and it also is the holder of claims arising out of any breach
of the agreements. That's where SCO finds itself. And the Novell case really has
little to do with that.
How can Heise say this? I thought the
Novell case had everything to do with the question of who owns the
copyrights.
Am I missing something?
--Ohms[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:40 PM EST |
With both AZ and DC being *former* SCO customers, what exacly is the reach of
SCO's license? Are you bound to the terms forever, even if you are no longer
using the products?
What if you used to work for AZ, administering their SCO servers in compliance
with the license terms. If you move on to another job, are you still tied by
their license? You did see the product and might remember what the man pages or
some file (eg. errno.h) looks like. When exactly do these license terms expire?
Just wondering how viral their licenses are in comparison with the GPL..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:46 PM EST |
Haha, this was a funny read!
I only wished more reporters had the sense to continue asking the same question
until either A) it's answered or B) refused.
We cannot tell you the specifics because the Judge asked us not to! HHAHAHA!
FUNNY!!!
The core of the case IS the shared libs. But I guess you have to go deep diving
to read the other now unmentionable allegations. These guys should do stand up!
I know had I been there I would have said I don't recall the Judge saying these
things. What exactly do you think she said and how do you arrive at that
interpretation?
Next he would have fiddled around and changed it to something different.
They have gotten six new customers and supposedly all is fine... Yeah in your
dreams! SCO is the single most feared company to do business with right now.
Well PJ, the real reason they have to go after AutoZone is because of their
close connection with you (both of you have Linux) and of course your close
connection to IBM, living in the same city and all!
You can tell how desperate someone is by how much they dream up things. I have a
website just like you do so I must also be connected to IBM. Though I DO have
two IBM PCs from a client, so I can install Linux on them. So maybe the
connection is through my customer, me, and the fact that I post here. That's
must mean a lot of advertising money knowing I post with you, anonymously no
less. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 04:49 PM EST |
I hope you recover soon.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 05:02 PM EST |
I think I know what SCO is doing: They're going to pretend there is no SysV
copyright ownership issue as hard as they can, and hope they can get the Novell
case moved back to state court.
Perhaps they're hoping they can keep the ownership issue under the rug until SCO
vs Novell is tried, and in the meantime they can continue trying to extort money
from Linux users.
This is probably the kind of thing Red Hat is trying to prevent with their
lawsuit. What the hell is going on in Delaware, anyway? Did somebody get to
the judge and persuade her to "pocket veto" the case?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mossc on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 05:02 PM EST |
Operator: Stephen Vaughan-Nichols, Eweek.com.
Vaughan-Nichols:
My question is a clarification of the situation of AutoZone. Am I correct in
assuming that the real problem with AutoZone is not so much that they're using
Linux, it's that they're in violation of their OpenServer license agreement
concerning shared libraries and that that is the core of your complaint with
AutoZone, that they're using these OpenServer shared licenses in Linux, which is
of course not according to the license for those libraries?
I
find the last assumption questionable. Does anyone have a copy of the
Openserver license agreement to check if use of "these OpenServer shared
licenses in Linux" is against the license agreement?
Even if they are using
the libraries (no evidence they are) if they are legally purchased copies it is
not a copyright violation.
Chuck
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MrEd on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 05:13 PM EST |
I just finished reading the transcript. PHTEWY.... what a bad taste in my mouth.
This guy is nefarious (sp?), if SCO does not crash and burn I think I will!
The only benefit I can see is that reading his tripe gives me a good adrenlin
rush that carries me through the rest of he day.
---
SCO is a tale spun by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 05:38 PM EST |
I'm not sure that Canopy would try to salvage SCO with the SEC and others
looking into this mess.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 06:01 PM EST |
SCO has sold what they do not own, and what in all probability does not even
exist.
Much like a license to use the Utah Golden Gate Bridge.
I do not believe it is legal to sell that.
IANAL Or even a Paralegal, but I know what I own.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 06:19 PM EST |
SCO seems to be confused about what shared libraries are and/or what the
AutoZone lawsuit is about. Do they mean to say that they call header files
"shared libraries" and that they have reason to believe AutoZone used
them (even though AutoZone employees have said otherwise), or do they just not
understand what their own lawsuit is about?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bruce_s on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 06:25 PM EST |
It seems to be fairly consistent method of SCOX of
carrying out a "target illumination" like with a LASER or
a searchlight by using interviews or press releases about
the target, before carrying out the actual attack.
Though they have used misdirection with an apparent
concentration on one target, then switching to something
else they have only mentioned a few times...
Beware the crossed searchlights!
Bruce S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 06:43 PM EST |
Darl says:
"Since that time we've been successful in re-establishing
SCO in the marketplace as the owner of the UNIX operating
system and as a leading provider of UNIX-based technology
and solutions."
This seems to be in contradiction with the position of SCO
in the slander of title lawsuit, in which it claims that
Novell causes confusion in the marketplace wrt ownership
rights of UNIX. Darls statement also suggests that it is
only recently that SCO is being perceived as owner of UNIX
in the marketplace, which is remarkable since they
allegedly own it for more than 8 years according to their
own statement. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Good points ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 07:06 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 06:48 PM EST |
Nope, I don't misunderstand at all....If you wish to nitpick, pick holes in PJ's
reasoning and say that there is no proof of malicious intent on the part of TSG,
then more fool you. Keep buying the TSG stocks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jccooper on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 06:51 PM EST |
SCOX has been for some time making statements attempting to connect Groklaw to
IBM (at least in the imagination). The mention in the call is less bold even
that statements in certain recent interviews.
Clearly this is because Groklaw is putting some hurt on their all-important
spin.
PJ, cleverly, has made a pre-emptive strike against such nonsense. Because the
concept is now exposed SCOX is less likely to move in that direction, and
because any connection has been denied, any such movement is less likely to fly,
either in court or the press.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 06:59 PM EST |
DaimlerChrysler is one of several thousand companies that have a
source code and/or source reference license agreement with SCO. These
agreements, such as the one with DaimlerChrysler, describe the terms under which
the licensee may use UNIX System V, as well as the derivative works of UNIX
System V, which include certain other flavors of UNIX, as well as
Linux.
As I read this, SCOX is advancing their novel legal
theory of derivative works another notch. In Utah they proposed to control what
IBM might put of its own creations into Linux. Now, they're claiming that their
Unix licensees must (forever, since D-C is no longer a customer) get SCOX'
permission to use anything "derived" from Unix.
"Contracts are what you use
against people you have relationships with" indeed! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Callan.ca on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 07:46 PM EST |
Not it is not... No, it is not..
thx :)
---
IANAL, IANAP, IAAC (I am a Canadian)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:28 PM EST |
Here's an excerpt from the conference call:
Greenmeier:
[..] Could you explain to me, just quickly, what the certification means?
What you were looking for them to prove when you sent that letter out a few
months ago?
[..]
McBride: [..] They have a contract
requirement to, in fact, certify [..] Then as we go through discovery and we
go through the process of finding out what is going on over there, we will see
if there are further violations.
The reason for
pointing out this section of dialogue is because it appears that McBride is
repeating, what I consider, a notable pattern of intimidation and fear through
his statements. In this IT Week article, while discussing the
IBM lawsuit he stated:
"As we move into discovery,
this will be very nice for us because now we get to go in and talk to all
their people, their customers. We get to really shake things up and get
in to find out what really is going on over there"
While I
admit these seem like mild examples, when coupled together with their many press
statements, a clear pattern of intimidation to instill fear starts forming.
Let's not forget the famous threatening letter they
sent to Jonathan Beyman at Lehman Brothers. Here's an
excerpt:
[..] If you fail to respond to our efforts to
pursue a licensing arrangement, WE WILL TURN YOUR NAME OVER TO OUR OUTSIDE
COUNSEL FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL ACTION."
If we take a
quick peek at the RICO act, the definition of "RACKETEERING"
is:
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 96--RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
Sec. 1961. Definitions
1) ``racketeering activity'' means (A) any act or threat
involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion
[..]
If we look closer at a legal
definition of
extortion:
3. Extortion
[..]
(2) The term
"extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent,
induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or
fear
Based on these points illustrated, why
wouldn't the US Government charge the SCO executives with RICO act violations
based on their "extortive" behaviour towards anyone that happens to be using
Linux (i.e. EV1, etc)??
"If I have seen further than others, it is
because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." - Sir Isaac Newton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:37 PM EST |
It may be that people are looking carefully at just how valuable that lottery
ticket really is.
It is usually a lot less than the money you paid for it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:38 PM EST |
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc20040311_8915_tc119.htm
Lawrence Goldfarb, managing partner of BayStar, says that senior executives at
the software giant had telephoned him about two months before the investment.
Would he be interested in investing in SCO, they asked? Goldfarb wouldn't
identify the executives, but says neither Chairman William Gates nor CEO Steve
Ballmer were among them. He says Microsoft didn't put any money into BayStar or
the SCO investment. A Microsoft spokesman says that the company has no
"direct or indirect" financial relations with BayStar, but declined to
comment when asked whether execs called BayStar to suggest investing in SCO.
**************************************************************
I guess the question is
(a) Is it true?
(b) If not, could it be SCO and/or BayStar wants us to believe MS is involved...
either to spread some of the blame around (and reduce their own cupability),
or to make SCO look like a force to be reckoned with, as opposed to a complete
laughing stock.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ockham's razor - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:40 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Chameleon on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:45 PM EST |
<i>Bray: But are you saying that they actually have done this with Linux?
Or are you just saying we don't know, and we insist that you confirm one way or
the other?
McBride: That's all this suit is about is: you need to confirm one way or
another.
</i>
IANAL or American but don't the US laws/constitution assert that you are
innocent until proven guilty?
I find it difficult to understand how you can bring suit against anyone without
providing specific evidence in the plaint, how does that work?
---
Quote: "Never be afraid try something new, remember, Amateurs built the arc
whilst professionals built the Titanic." Charles Faulkner[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Callan.ca on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:46 PM EST |
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc20040311_8915_tc119.htm
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V55522EA7
---
IANAL, IANAP, IAAC (I am a Canadian)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:04 PM EST |
"Reid: When you say a handful, is that less than 10 or less than 50?
McBride: Less than 50."
That's really a broad, stupid question. Reid could have made it a "more or
less" question. Reid could have asked for a more precise number or a rather
estimate. Reid could have asked for proof. Reid could have "begged the
question". Reid could have asked wether it is relatively rather near under
10 than rather near under 50; which is what Darl used to answer, but his answer
doesn't cut out the first possibility leading to Darl not having lied when the
answer is ie. 5. Reid could have asked a lot more beyond my immagination.
Instead, he choses to use this type of question. It doesn't take much knowledge
about maths that this is a damn bad one.
The answer is even broader but can eventually at a later time be turned out as a
smart one. Darl could have said: "between 40 and 50". 5 however, for
example, is also both less than 10 and less than 50. Finally, there's a lot
between 0 and 50. 2, for example. Psychologically speaking, it is highly likely
that Darl took this number from the one who asked the question. How much of a
chance is it that Darl took the number 50 out of "10 or 50" rather
than he thought "right, it is 50"? Not very creative, but more
importantly he didn't actually drawn a precise picture. If he knew the picture,
or wanted to share it, he would have done so to create confidence.
Conclusion: it likely that it is lower. It is likely this is self-fullfilling
prophecy FUD.
Why so vague, Darl? It doesn't create confidence wether it is wise for me to buy
SCO stock, or not.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:11 PM EST |
Subsequent to DEF-14A filing, proxy statement related?
Film# = 04009720, File #000-29911
I'll look more carefully at the DEF-14A
Its at:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000104746904005973/a2129771zdef14
a.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chameleon on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:14 PM EST |
Please be aware that comments like "I havn't read line for line" are
not conducant to producing positive responses from people that have. I don't
intend this to be a flame or insulting but how can you expect people who have
taken the time to read the material to provide you with these answers if you are
not willing to make the effort yourself?
---
Quote: "Never be afraid try something new, remember, Amateurs built the arc
whilst professionals built the Titanic." Charles Faulkner[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 09:27 PM EST |
One of S2's subsidiaries is a company called Sans Locus, a web design outfit in
Charleston, SC. Just came across a personal page of someone who's a SCO
employee but who works out of the Sans Locus (=S2) office there in Charleston,
and works closely with the employees of Sans Locus:
http://www.kmcmurray.biz.sco.com
Now, S2, as you remember, is Mike Anderer's company, the people who matched SCO
up with BayStar & MSFT. Since the infamous memo came out, SCO's been saying
that he was some random outside consultant who was deeply misinformed. We
already knew that was bogus since Darl and Anderer go way back, but here's more
evidence that the two companies have been working together very closely for a
while now, even outside of the whole SCO vs. Linux thing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:03 PM EST |
Throughout this document SCO keeps refering to "our
valuable Intellectual Property". The question I got is if
it is so "valuable" why haven't they EVER made a profit on
thier Unix products? Even today those products are not
making any profit for them as products go. As a lawsuit
goes, it may make them a little return for a short time
but eventually will have its day in court. The question
that is never asked of them in these calls is why their
Unix business has NEVER made a profit.
Just an observation....
B.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 10:56 PM EST |
Darl Fud has made it perfectly clear that he intends to pursue his shakedown
indefinitely. The truth does not matter. Grabbing attention matters. He
constantly repeats lies, like SCOG owns UNIX or the Linux community
admitted to whatever.
Darl Fud is testing people’s resolve. Daryl Fud is wearing people down. I think
that Darl Fud expects this showdown to come down to who blinks first. That
is real good for the good people of this Earth.
Darl Fud has surrounded himself with people willing to work for a percent of
the money action. Lawyers. Deal brokers. Merchant bankers.
Darl Fud is counting on dividing people up and conquering one smaller group
at a time. Some people will play along for an easy profit. For others it will be
their job.
Darl Fud is definitely getting support from Canopy. Just look at the media
stories describing CA being pressured by Canopy to sign SCOG licenses.
Darl Fud is definitely getting support from Microsoft and Sun.
Darl Fud is definitely getting support from the captive press. The independent
press is following the money, though.
I keep telling myself SCOG owns no trademarks in UNIX, no trade secrets in
AT&T UNIX, no patents in AT&T UNIX, and there are limited copyrights in
AT&T UNIX owned by Novell. There is no UNIX System V copyrighted code in
Linux. The SCOG is going to lose every suit in court.
Every day, Darl Fud sounds more out of touch, more combative, more
menacing, more vague, and more nervous. The pressure is obviously wearing
on him. His closest associates are having a more difficult time supporting
Darl’s claims without contradicting each other.
Honestly, does anyone believe the SCOG claims? Did anyone notice the SCOG-
IBM judge’s gag order applies to the AutoZone suit, in SCOG’s understanding?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2004 @ 02:31 AM EST |
McBride: No. Again, I guess the simple way to think of it
is if you took the case we filed against AutoZone yesterday and did a search and
replace on the name of an end user who we never had a relationship with but is
running Linux, that suit would pretty much hold up. It's going to be a little
bit different obviously, but in general the claims that we're making there are
pervasive throughout the end-user Linux community.
From Defendant The
SCO Group, Inc.'s Opening Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss
(September 15, 2003):
There are no allegations that SCO has
conveyed to Red Hat either expressly or implicitly that it intends to sue Red
Hat to enforce its copyrights. Nor has SCO done so. There are no allegations
that SCO has sued any other entity for infringement. - Nor has SCO done so.
Under these circumstances, the declaratory judgment claims fail for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. [Emphasis added.]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2004 @ 04:45 AM EST |
I have been unable to persuade SCO to sue me for using linux, so I'm actually
kind of stoked about the possibility of contributing to a defence of Groklaw.
I've just made a pre-emptive (and long overdue) donation, and there's more where
that came from.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2004 @ 04:50 AM EST |
"Give me liberty of give me death"
Patrick Henry.
PJ and Growlaw is the only breath of fresh air and factual truth. The web site
just brings all public documents and statements together, for everyone to read.
From their we draw our own opinions. The Constitution gave us the right of free
speech. Groklaw and PJ makes this wonderfully possible in the internet age.
Wonderful job.
Ken King[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2004 @ 07:26 AM EST |
Why doesnt somebody ask the obvious question and be persistant in getting an
answer.....
REPORTER : There has been numerous demands from the open source community for
SCO to show the code so it can be taken out, it proven. So Darl, is there, in
your view, any possible comprimise for end users of Linux, to continue using
Linux Without paying SCO a licensing fee, and without fear of litigation?
McBRIDE : Blah Blah Dribble etc. Meaning 'No'.
REPORTER : So, by your reasoning, taking a hypothetical mirror lawsuit, swapping
out Autozone for...Lets Say MacDonalds, the arguments would be nearly the same.
So lets pursue this, lets say KFC went to MacDonalds and said "Hey your
burger seasoning uses one of our Spices, we dont want to tell you which one it
is, because we fear you will just take it out and use another, and besides it
would then be public knowledge what our Spice actually is, No we want you to
continue using your current seasoning BUT license our Spice within it, at 20c
per burger, and there is no alternative", Would that be a fair assessment
of your position?
McBride : Well....er..um...yes I suppose...but I dont have a 'BEEF' with
McDonalds! (endless childish giggles)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2004 @ 08:22 AM EST |
"... if you took the case we filed against AutoZone yesterday and
did a search and replace on the name of an end user who we never had a
relationship with but is running Linux, that suit would pretty much hold
up."
Darl obviously intended to say this ONLY to people who never
saw the actual complaint. If I actually replaced the name, as Darl suggested,
with the name of a Linux user who never licensed any SCO product, almost NOTHING
would hold up! You have to give Darl credit for having the nerve to make such a
bold face lie straight to the media.
It also seems to me that the
conference operator was actually cutting off many questions. In some cases Darl
was obviously dancing his way around a question, going completely off-topic, but
never actually answered it. However, the journalist who asked it never seemed
to persist in getting an appropriate answer. To me that was very
uncharacteristic of what journalists usually do.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: merodach on Thursday, March 11 2004 @ 01:58 PM EST |
There may be some contracture obligation from when Novell purchased the System V
rights that would prevent it, or there may code embedded in it for whcih Novell
may not own the rights.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, March 11 2004 @ 09:41 PM EST |
It just occurred to me that the SCO Group would have a hard time asking any
court to silence groklaw since the SCO Group is running its own advocacy
website. Were we to find ourselves in court, we will cheerfully point out that
we are advocating the Open Source point of view through groklaw, just as the SCO
Group is advocating its own point of view on its own website. So why we get
shutdown for doing a much better job than the SCO Group?
The only way the SCO Group could get groklaw shut down is by successfully
alleging that groklaw has acted illegally in its information gathering
activities. Unfortunately for the SCO Group, groklaw has beaten and is beating
the daylights out of the SCO Group's PR machine simply by using publicly
available resources.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2004 @ 09:49 PM EST |
If the SCOG has been proven to have publicly spewed FUD up to now,
then the SCOG might be still lying during the conference call. It is more
possible than what I heard the SCOG saying in the transcript.
Lets review the past year and refresh people's memories about SCOG's
public statements. Here is just a select few of the whoppers:
SCOG has enough evidence at hand to try the IBM case.
The case is about UNIX trade secrets.
SCOG has gone over the source code in fine detail...MIT...have found proof.
Its about IBM divulging the UNIX source code.
There are millions of lines of System V code in Linux.
Here are some files with legal proof of copyright infringement.
Its not possible to correct the problem of Linux infringement.
Does SCOG have any scruples? Does anyone in the IT industry believe SCOG
public statements? I tune out Darl and focus on the courtroom statements.
The DC suit is over old AT&T UNIX license terms, but DC is no longer a SCOG
customer.
The AZ suit is over vague structures and methods. Their lack of specificity is
the SCOG M.O. However, we know that AZ ported the AZ applications from
UNIX to Linux. Therein is one link to IBM. We know SCOG's amended filing
claims that AZ and IBM upset SCOG. We know there is no copyright violation
in Linux.
Based on the SCOG-IBM suit, we can expect amended claims and contradict-
ory courtroom statements and no legal evidence. I wonder how the judges
like dealing with SCOG. I wonder how customers like dealing with SCOG. I
wonder how much longer SCOG can survive.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
