|
|
| BayStar Fallout & SCO and IBM Each Get More Time to Answer Each Other |
 |
|
Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 03:44 PM EDT
|
Here is a Stipulation and Order signed by Judge Kimball on the 15th. IBM gets a bit more time to answer SCO's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order and SCO gets more time to answer IBM's Amended Counterclaims. A lot happened on the 15th, huh? I am aware that you can't focus on that at all today. Me too. So what about BayStar?
As far as SCO being "stunned" by the letter of that same date from BayStar asking for their money back, as the Salt Lake Tribune reports, I seriously doubt that there was no buildup to the letter. Obviously there had to be an initial request from BayStar to redeem, and then discussions, one would think, and then discussions breaking down, and then threats and counters and then kaboom, the letter. What a surprise. The grounds might be, but I doubt the desire to redeem was any shock. Anyway, the Salt Lake Tribune reports on SCO being "stunned" and all. Blake Stowell says they are surprised. So there you are. They are surprised and seeking information from BayStar, the article says. If I were the headline writer for the SLT, my headline would have been: SCO Proves You Really DO Reap What You Sow.
They are being publicly accused, they assert falsely, are obviously in danger of being sued, and are frantically seeking specifics as to what they are accused of doing wrong so they can defend themselves. Sound familiar? Of course, BayStar in a perfect world would tell them they'd be happy to tell them but only if they sign an NDA first in which they swear they won't talk publicly about what they find out. Laura DiDio shows up too, with her usual jaw-dropping insight. However would we know what it all means without her? She sounds a bit flustered though:
"Laura DiDio, an analyst with the Yankee Group, called the BayStar development 'distressing to SCO, its customers and other investors. If SCO is forced to comply, it could have an adverse impact on the company's financials and its ability to continue to wage the myriad high-profile legal battles,' she said. "DiDio also noted that BayStar's allegations that, essentially, SCO had not lived up to the terms of its deal could 'make other SCO investors extremely nervous.'" I knew you'd be panting to know what she'd make of it, since she makes a living analyzing and all, so now you know What It All Means. She may have other reasons for being flustered. How do you like this headline? "Yankee Linux Findings Rigged Too"? Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols got an interview with Blake Stowell, and Stowell explains one by one what all the clauses SCO is accused of violating mean. According to eWeek, SCO is rocked. Stowell says they got no hint, but he provides this overview of what the clauses add up to: "Specifically, BayStar is accusing SCO of violating four sections of the agreement: sections 2(b)(v), 2(b)(vii), 2(b)(viii) and 3(g). Stowell characterized these as 'having to do with disclosure issues and that BayStar wanted to be kept informed every step of the way of SCO's business.'" All they had to do for that is read Groklaw. It seems our analysis was correct. The issue is did they tell BayStar the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and keep BayStar informed? Anyway, for those who can focus on the mundane, here is the Stipulation and Order.
*******************************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
____________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION, a New York corporation,
Defendant.
__________________________
STIPULATION AND ORDER
Case No. 03-CV-0294 DAK
Hon: Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Wells
________________________
Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") and Defendant International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") jointly stipulate to enlarge the time for SCO to respond to IBM's Amended Counterclaims to April 23, 2004, and to enlarge the time for IBM to respond to SCO's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order to April 30, 2004.
Dated this 12th day of April, 2004.
By: ____[signature]_______
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, L.L.P.
Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BY: ___[signature]_________
SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
Nathan E. Wheatley, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
David R. Marriott, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
This matter having come before this Court upon the stipulation of the parties and for other good cause being found therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1. SCO shall have until April 23, 2004, to respond to IBM's Amended Counterclaims.
2. IBM shall have until April 30, 2004, to respond to SCO's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order.
ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2004.
BY THE COURT:
_______[signature]_________
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
April 16, 2004
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *
Re: 2:03-cv-00294
True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:
Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]
Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
David K. Markarian, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
Thomas G. Rafferty, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
David R. Marriott, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: sphealey on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
> The issue is did they tell BayStar the truth, the whole
> truth, and nothing but the truth and keep BayStar informed?
That's a good question. But I would say a deeper and perhaps more important one
is: was this an orchestrated event? And if so, by whom?
sPh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Was this an orchestrated event? - Authored by: archonix on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- Running out of money is a good excuse - Authored by: worst-case on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:29 PM EDT
- Look it all had to fall in a heap in the end. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- What we'll hear next... - Authored by: Observer on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 07:41 PM EDT
- Was this an orchestrated event? - YES! - Authored by: garbage on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 09:09 PM EDT
- Was this an orchestrated event? - Authored by: etmax on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 10:16 PM EDT
- Was this an orchestrated event? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 03:00 AM EDT
- Was this an inevitable event? - Authored by: jgb on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 09:44 AM EDT
- Was this an orchestrated event? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 10:52 PM EDT
- Was this an orchestrated event? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 06:01 AM EDT
- Was this an orchestrated event? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 09:07 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Lev on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:25 PM EDT |
They are being publicly accused, they assert falsely, are obviously
in danger of being sued, and are frantically seeking specifics as to what they
are accused of doing wrong so they can defend themselves. Sound
familiar?
I don't think they are being publicly accused.
BayStar's letter to them wasn't an open letter. It was SCO that made it public.
BayStar even refused comment when approached by the press.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
This is a speculative, but *very* interesting post from the Yahoo SCOX
message board. Normally, I don't cross-post, but this may have some bearing on
BayStar's or RBC's involvement, as well as showing interest from a Seattle-based
investor:
Broadmark Capital Invests in SCOX
by: stats_for_all
04/17/04 04:54 pm
Msg: 123663 of 123670
Following suggestions that Robert
(Bob) Bench is the key player in SCOX, I began a search for him.
Bob Bench shows
up with a testimonial at a Seatle based boutique Investment bank website. His
testimonial (one of four) says:
"Caldera International, Inc., now The SCO
Group, Inc. engaged Broadmark Capital at a challenging time in our company's
history. They took our assignment with enthusiasm and provided needed focus with
professional direction and care. The time and effort spent by Broadmark's
professional team was above and beyond expectations. They were able to develop a
clear message and target the appropriate opportunities for our company's best
financial interest. Within a few short months from the engagement of Broadmark
we had identified investors and options that were right for the company at its
current stage. They scheduled and accompanied us to many face to face meetings
that allowed us to develop long lasting relationships. They assisted management
in preparing appropriate materials and presentations to articulate the company's
message. They were effective in assisting our negotiating process and
structuring appropriate financing and equity instruments. We found that
Broadmark gave us the critical attention and personal time commitment to
accomplish the objectives we required. The Broadmark team assigned to our
company were professional and personally motivated to accomplish the
task."
-Bob Bench, CFO, The SCO Group, Inc. (f/k/a Caldera Internationl, Inc.)
Lindon, UT
Broadmark Capital describes itself "The firm offers investment,
advisory, and financing services to emerging companies, institutional investors,
and high net worth individuals."
The individual responsible for the SCOX
investment is
Aidan M. Stretch, Managing Director of the Seattle branch
aidan@broadmark.com
The news archive at the broadmark site begins tracking
SCOX on August 4, 2003.
It looks to me that Broadmark was involved in the PIPE
deal, and not the Baystar, but the RBC portion. The deal would involve a
high-net worth individual in the Seattle area.
Interesting, isn't
it? I mean, why the hell is SCO dealing with a bank in *Seattle*? The MS
connection to some sort of financing for SCO, the PIPE deal probably, is
becoming undeniable.
Yes, I know this information isn't enough to *prove*
anything. But it's certainly suggestive, and may be the next step in the paper
trail connecting MS to the SCO financing.
Anyone here know more about
Broadmark Capital?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
I guess other major holders of SCOX will be spending the weekend trying to
determine what to do on Monday. They have to make an educated guess, is it that
SCO won't or can't repay Baystar?
If it's won't, then they have a short
time to decide what to do; if it's can't then it's time to jump ship now and
avoid the rush.
Will the shareholder meeting go ahead? If it does, will a
Baystar representitive be there? Will Darl???
You know, if this were a film
script it's about now that
the shadowy financial backer would make a major error
of
judgement and blow the plot wide open...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: KenM on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:41 PM EDT |
This just occurred to me this morning and I can?t figure out why it wouldn?t
work.
1) Use GPL code in your code
2) Make your code GPL
3) If anyone asks for the source code, disassemble your binary and give them the
assembly source code
To prevent users from copying your code or selling it to others, make your GPL?d
code require a proprietary executable or library that you also write. The two
pieces could talk to each other through a pipe so they aren?t statically linked
which prevents the need for the second piece to be under a GPL.
I?ve just started following Linux and Open Source so I?m not too knowledgeable
about the subject. Am I missing something?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Are you missing something? - Authored by: Jack Hughes on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT
- OT: GPL Killer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT
- OT: GPL Killer? - Authored by: ssavitzky on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:57 PM EDT
- OT: GPL Killer? - Authored by: Fredric on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:58 PM EDT
- OT: GPL Killer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:59 PM EDT
- GPL demands the original source code - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 06:07 PM EDT
- OT: GPL Killer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 06:49 PM EDT
- OT: GPL Killer? - Authored by: arch_dude on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 06:52 PM EDT
- OT: GPL Killer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 07:01 PM EDT
- OT: GPL Killer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 07:33 PM EDT
- OT: GPL Killer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 11:24 PM EDT
- Obviously you haven't read the GPL - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 12:23 AM EDT
- OT: GPL Killer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 08:04 PM EDT
- OT: GPL Killer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 02:46 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:42 PM EDT |
So that Baystar (which is a party to SCO) cannot pull money out that might have
otherwise been won in the court case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
After looking at the contract provisions and reading Mr. Stowell’s comments it
appears that BayStar’s complaint is either something TSG didn’t tell it when
BayStar plunked down the cash, or else it’s something that TSG had done since or
said since, that causes BayStar to feel TSG materially breached it’s reporting
requirements under the 8K filing or subsequent 10K filings. In thinking about it
I have to guess that the most obvious matter is the Novell assertions (unless
BayStar has significant holdings in AutoZone or DaimlerCrysler) I don’t really
think it’s the assertions on copyright ownership, that’s a legitimately trial
able grief that actually could go wither way, no I suspect that it’s more likely
to be the ability of Novell, under the contract, to hold harmless and shield
from suit all it’s former customers. That’s actually quite clear-cut in the
original sales deal between Novell and SCO. If Novell did this for all
preexisting customers then TSG could only go after customers that are new
licenses of Unix that either SCO or itself signed up. That’s a MUCH less
profitable business mode. It would essentially mean that to buy from TSG is to
hang a big “Sue Me!” sign on your back. Fat lot of deals you’ll close that way.
If you assume that Novell is correct in asserting it can shield it’s former
customers (Which seems clear to me) then TSG really did misrepresent the
strength of it’s hand and BayStar has no choice but to protect it’s equity
owners from the inevitable loss when TSG folds. That’s due diligence on it’s
part. Whether it can get its hands out of this bear trap before the trap slams
shut is an entirely different matter. Since this puts the writing on the wall
for TSG it will be interesting to see how Canopy guts TSG before the courts can
intervene to stop it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
Will the next owner (MS indirectly, maybe?) use whatever it is SCO owns to try
another attack? If SCO goes down, then does Canopy Group get the assests?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
From what I understand, today is the day SCO and IBM have to hand over
everything the judge ordered in discovery.
I suppose they will each then file a memo with the judge about what the other
turned over, and how it was sufficient or insufficient.
Question: after the memos, will there be a hearing on this? Is there one
scheduled? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pogson on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
If SCOG pays, they die promptly, so I expect they will fight Baystar. That will
bring on a suit by Baystar. One characteristic of such a suit is that the
contract is fresh, clearly written and public, just as the SEC filings and
public pronouncements are. Unlike these other suits, this one would have only a
few clearly stated claims and these could be decided quickly based on a very
small number of evidences. Recollections and documentation should be better.
Discovery would be very interesting...- is there anyone who can report
that SCOG is working late this weekend?
- would SCOG try to dig up dirt on the
purveyor of that other OS to distract from its own wrongs (counter claims)?
-
What are the odds that Baystar gets to cut SCOG's throat first?
- Would court
docket slots be the limiting factor?
- What court would have jurisdiction?
-
Would Baystar start with an injunction to hold off spending the
money?
---
http://www.skyweb.ca/~alicia/ , my homepage, an eclectic
survey of topics: berries, mushrooms, teaching in N. Canada, Linux, firearms and
hunting... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: VivianC on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 06:40 PM EDT |
All they had to do for that is read Groklaw.
They probably did,
hence the sudden effort to redeem the shares.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pb on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 06:51 PM EDT |
| The
Day The SCO Group Died
(unfinished, please
contribute :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- As seen on /. - Authored by: Jude on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- As seen on /. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 01:24 AM EDT
- As seen on /. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 04:09 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
But I have to wonder what the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could do. Greenspan himself
noted recently that "... the foundation of business is trust...". IMHO
it's a sad day when you have to (try to) legislate ethical behavior. And then
people wonder why you're not interested in doing business.
---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." --
Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
"Anyway, the Salt Lake Tribune reports on SCO being "stunned" and
all. Blake Stowell says they are surprised ..." PJ
SCOG has a record of being stunned when the other party follows through its
words with action. To me, it's an identifiable pattern that SCOG is so
comfortable with its cocoon of delusions that it systematically chooses
delusions over reality, and will not begin to deal with reality until SCOG is
about to be strung up. No matter the outcome of Baystar's request, Baystar
should have known better than go to bed with SCOG. Yet another example of a SCOG
business partner/suitor who came to grief and who woke up to reality with a dose
of the clap, I suppose.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zapyon on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 07:40 PM EDT |
how often recent events driven by Microsoft (as the Yankee Group "study's"
findings) remind me of Ghandi's wise words:
First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win!
Mahatma Ghandi
I get the impression that Microsoft (and
friends) are beginnig to panic. Their fighting style has consistently changed
for the worse -- and makes them look bad to more and more business people, I
think. When will the first stock market people start "shorting" MS shares? ;-)
Cheers
Andreas
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
"The issue is did they [SCOG] tell BayStar the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth and keep BayStar informed?" PJ
SCOG telling the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to its business partners? They
wouldn't stoop to that level - our level, not the SCOG that we all know
and love? Would they?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 07:56 PM EDT |
"Laura DiDio, an analyst with the Yankee Group, called the BayStar
development 'distressing to SCO, its customers and other investors. If SCO is
forced to comply, it could have an adverse impact on the company's financials
and its ability to continue to wage the myriad high-profile legal battles,' she
said."
Don't you worry your little head, Laura babe: SCOG is fighting to the finish
whether it wants to or not, whether it has the means to do so or not, and
whether or not it would rather go down on its knees and beg for mercy. We know
that SCOG will fight to the bitter end, because we will make SCOG fight to the
bitter end. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Darkside on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
If I were the headline writer for the SLT, my headline would have
been:
SCO Proves You Really DO Reap What You
Sow.
Mine would have been "Reaping what you SCO". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 08:09 PM EDT |
"SCO shall have until April 23, 2004, to respond to IBM's Amended
Counterclaims" Judge Kimball
And on April 23, the groklaw community expects SCOG to be bright eyed, bushy
tailed - and jump on that rack! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 08:20 PM EDT |
| Laura DiDio, an analyst with the Yankee Group, called the BayStar development
'distressing to SCO, its customers and other investors.
Did Darl think
Baystar just came to sit around the campfire singing Kumbaya?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gdt on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 10:55 PM EDT |
Hi PJ
For us overseas readers, is it possible for someone to write a
summary of the US bankruptcy process. Also is it possible for some finanicial
wizard to describe what funds SCO would have on hand at bankruptcy and list
SCO's potential debtors and the order they would be satisfied?
It looks
like a time is approaching when that information would be of wide
interest.
Let me say once again what a wonderful thing Groklaw
is,
Glen [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jailbait on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 11:33 PM EDT |
Boies Schiller & Flexner got a 20% commission on the money that BayStar and
Royal Bank invested. If SCO refunds the BayStar money does Boies Schiller &
Flexner have to refund their commission also? Or does SCO have to refund the
BayStar money and be out of pocket for the Boies Schiller & Flexner
commission?
---------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 11:40 PM EDT |
It is disturbing to remember that it was SUN and MICROSOFT that purchased Unix
IP licenses from SCO. It is NOTEWORTHY that both Sun and Microsoft in the
webcast revealing their 'deal' kept hammering IP and Patents. Baystar jumps ship
- they saw the rats leaving. Remember it was IBM who subpoened the investors,
Baystar? (What investment firm needs press time that it is incompetent? That's
how you lose investors and therefore business!) The investment was such a
surprise to the Linux Community. The IP Licenses were a surprise. Both seemed
to come from left field (How lucky for SCO...)
Seen from the perspective of Sun, IBM is the enemy. So what pact would you (did
you) make with the devil to fight the enemy? Baystar wants their money back.
THERE WAS NO CLEAR IP OWNERSHIP BY SCO. Investment firms are really up the creek
if they lose the ENTIRE investment.
The phrase "IBM's vast patent portfolio" came up too often in the
early discussions of this case. So Sun and Microsoft were protecting themselves
and investing in the future, against something... IBM? They said they have been
in bed for a year discussing how they could bury the hatchet and sink some
putts.
I think IBM should treat the purchase of those 'innocent' IP Licenses as illegal
- anti-trust violations - and subpoena the lovers. I think SCO assets should be
frozen. I think that Baystar and RNC should be forced to lose all their money
for incompetency sake, and face the music and the press and their shareholders.
I think that Sun and Microsoft have A LOT OF EXPLAINING to do, for collusion and
anti-trust violations. And I hope IBM goes after them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: emmenjay on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 11:52 PM EDT |
Though it is not certain, this looks like it might lead SCO to bankruptcy.
That would be a good result for the open source community, and I think that the
list of mourners at SCO's funeral would be extremely short.
But is it really a good result?
While SCO might soon be bankrupt, Messers Mc Bride and Stowell will not be. In
all likelihood they, and their colleagues, will all make large personal profits
from the exercise. Will this deter others from similar exercises in the future?
Hardly.
If this brings down SCO, I will join the cheering - but I fear there will be
more trouble to come.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Looks like a victory, but ... - Authored by: mobrien_12 on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 12:00 AM EDT
- Looks like a victory, but ... - Authored by: josmith42 on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 12:11 AM EDT
- Looks like a victory, but ... - Authored by: Greebo on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 03:01 AM EDT
- Looks like a victory, but ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 06:07 AM EDT
- Looks like a victory, but ... - Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 06:44 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 11:53 PM EDT |
In its suit against IBM, SCO seeks a minimum of $5 billion, and
a maximum of $50 billion in damages based on its allegations SCO's
proprietary Unix code was incorporated into recently distributed versions of
Linux.
Does the SLT do any research at all?
SCO is
suing IBM based on:
- The fact that IBM contributed IBM owned
source code to Linux (code that SCO had never seen outside of Linux). SCO
claims that IBM cannot do this.
- The fact that SCO claims it terminated
IBM's AIX licence, so IBM owes them lots of $$ for selling AIX without a
licence. This claim ignores the fact that Novell has said that SCO cannot
terminate IBMs licence (and Novell can do this according to the contract between
Novell and oldSCO), as well as the fact that IBM's licence is defined as
"irrevocable. "
Also, I don't think any plaintiff has the
right to define the minimum amount of damages. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MikeA on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 03:49 AM EDT |
| I have read a "myriad" (to steal a quote from Didio) of different
theories about what a possible SCO bankruptcy could mean for the IBM case and
there seem to be several different camps of theory. Perhaps I am putting the
cart before the horse, but we all are guity of it on this issue. Is there some
way that we could get an authoritative answer as to whether or not this BayStar
retraction could scuttle the IBM case or it's counterclaims? In other words - if
SCO were to go belly-up on Monday, what would happen to the court
cases?
For one, this would go a long way towards reinforcing or deflating
some of the conspiracy theories floating around at the moment. And well,
shucks....we might all learn something in the process and it may help us to
focus on more pressing issues if that question is put to bed.
Just trying
to keep this meeting on point. Thanks!
---
Change is merely the
opportunity for improvement. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MikeA on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 06:08 AM EDT |
| Press Release Source: The SCO Group, Inc.
The SCO(R) Group, Inc.
Announces New Headquarters In Brazil. Monday April 19, 1:45 am
ET
LINDON, Utah, April 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc.
("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX operating system, the C++
coding language and inventor of the question mark ("?") announced today that it
has opened their new global headquarters office in Rio De Janeiro. Effective
immediately, all senior staff, executive officers and directors are being
transfered to the new headquarters, located within the posh financial district
at 1942 Extraditione Way. The SCO Group has sucessfully leased the former
headquarters office space in Lindon Utah to a west-coast software development
firm which recently began seeking smaller venues due to expected layoffs.
Remaining personel and support staff from all SCO international offices,
including Germany and Australia, are expected to move into the new offices in
late June after a Stock Incentive Plan is finalized and fully
funded.
Darl McBride, CEO, explained that this was a unique opportunity
and strategic move for the company to concentrate the knowledge base of the firm
and reduce overhead expenses at the same time. "This is a new age that we
live in today" McBride said, talking from his flight via SkyPhone en route
to the Brazilian capitol. "This is a world without borders. The internet has
shown us that there are no such things as political boundaries anymore, and if
you don't wake up to this new reality, you are going to be left behind, without
protection, all alone, branded by some pirate cattle-rustler who is going to
sell your body - which is your personal property by the way - to every and any
slaughterhouse which can get their hands on your God-given rights and distribute
your flesh throughout the world to each and every supermarket in the world, or
McDonalds, which, by the way, is a customer of ours." McBride's vision
was echoed and heralded by many in the IT industry including Laura Didio of the
independednt consulting firm Yankee Group, and Rob Enderle, formerly of the
Enderly Group but who now heads the newly formed Enderly ParaSailing and Beach
Towel Rental. "Yes...what?...I said yes...we think it is a brilliant move
on...Darl..let go of the phone!..it's MY turn....get me another drink......I was
saying it is a brilliant move on the part of SCO. Can you hear me? Hello??"
explained Laura Didio, apparently on the same flight. Others in the IT industry,
however, expressed some reservations about the move. "It makes a lot of sense
from a dollar-value standpoint to reduce the overhead costs of office space and
labor wages, but I question their choice of country." added Steven
Vaughan-Nichols. "I mean, why Brazil? The entire country there has just formally
switched to using Linux...they will not be very welcome. I am trying to think of
another reason why they would pick THAT country. Hmmmm...I wonder." SCO
remained undaunted by their critics. "This is about the new world paradigm."
McBride explained. "Millions of the greatest U.S. corporations have moved their
operations overseas....it is the natural selection of the capitalistic model..to
make money....because that is our right, secured by the Constitution. Our
forefathers wanted it this way, otherwise they wouldn't have written it! But if
I took the Constitution, and copied large parts of it, and then changed it to
give-away copied versions in books at Borders bookstores, lots of people would
want it because it is really good, but our Founding Fathers would be cheated.
They would be forced to go after Borders and it's customers because.....no, she
ordered the gin and tonic, mine is the Mimosa.....because that is our right to
make money under the very Constitution that was stolen in the first place and
copied. You see how it works? And Borders bookstores could not possibly be as
successful as they are if they hadn't been giving away plagarized copies of the
Constitution, so obviously something is very wrong here. And if we let that
happen, what's going to be next? The Declaration of Independence?? We have to
stop this now, before the terrorists and other hippie elements steal and
re-write the Bill of Rights, or even worse, the Bible."
News of the
strategic move was welcomed on Wall Street, where shares of SCO stock rose
sharply for a few brief moments before being de-listed.
Forward-Looking
Statements
This press release contains forward looking statements related
to SCO's mistaken belief that it owns the UNIX Operating System, even though for
some strange reason they still pay 95% of their Unix related revenues to
Novell.
About SCO
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps
millions of people in over 82 countries laugh. Headquartered in Lindon,
Utah Rio De Janeiro, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 3 shrills
and 4 MIT Spectral Analysts. SCO Global Services provides reliable PR support
and services to financial analysts and uninformed investors worldwide. For more
information on SCO products and services, visit
http://www.groklaw.net. ---
Change is merely the opportunity for
improvement. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 06:59 AM EDT |
Could BayStar have shorted a lot of SCOX shares knowing that this news would
make the shares tank and they reap a huge profit, ontop of the 20 million they
get back?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Short? - Authored by: Baldy on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 08:16 AM EDT
- Short? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 08:36 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 07:06 AM EDT |
Is how Darl is going to pin this one on the FOSS community. Goodness, I didn't
even realise that we had such influence over investment groups. Our sinister
tentacles must be everywhere![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 09:24 AM EDT |
| SCO related quote from the article:
For starters, it points to
Microsoft not having much confidence in SCO’s kamikaze mission actually having
any chance of sinking the open source carrier.
H@ns
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 11:00 AM EDT |
I love this quote for Stowell in the eWeek article
"It's our belief
that they'd have to prove we breached the agreement before we'd redeem those
shares."
Funny how the hunter becomes the hunted. Thing is, in
the case of SCO v IBM, SCO doesn't have a chance in hell of proving anything,
but for BS v SCO, BS only needs to read this place
After reading the
article, it certinaly looks like the SCOndrels had the FUD machine working
overtime to get their SCOspeak just right. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
Sounds like the beginning of the end for SCOX. Even if they don't pay Baystar. I
would be willing to bet finding future Investors would be next to imposible.
Now I am betting Microsoft will buy them and start finghting this fight
directly. Any takers?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
| Everyone keeps talking about SCO going bankrupt, but they claim to have had
$60M. Presumably that money was intended either to get them all the way
through the trial, or at least far enough along that they'd be able to show
that
they were winning and get more funding.
So given that, if they are
forced to redeem BayStar's shares, is that really
going to hurt them that badly
(financially)? They still have the SBC half of the
warchest, and that might be
more than enough for them to survive long
enough to lose. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: 2Sleepy2 on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
Ummm...
PJ - anyone reported this one yet?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 18 2004 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
Prediction: To the extent the BayStar redemption request relates to the Novell
matter, SCO will argue that the disclosure of the Novell litigation in the
January 21, 2004 Form 8-K and again in the January 28, 2004 Form 10-K, both of
which occurred before the February 5, 2004 Exchange Agreement, means that
BayStar acquired the Series A-1 with knowledge of Novell's assertions. Of
course, BayStar's original October 16, 2003 acquisition of the Series A was made
at a time at which the Novell situation was not publicly disclosed, but SCO's
argument would be that the Exchange "wiped the slate clean" with
respect to disclosure issues regarding the original Series A sale. Note
especially that the Exchange Agreements' representations are made as of the
"Closing Date" (February 5, 2004) and SCO several times repeats that
they do not know what BayStar's issue would be under the Exchange Agreement. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: crs17 on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 02:15 AM EDT |
Baystar is recalling its $20 million dollar investment in SCO. That still
leaves Royal Bank of Canada with a $30 million dollar investment. Will they
follow Baystar looking for the exit?
Of course this depends on who one thinks RBC is acting on behalf of. If they
were just looking for a good return on their own money, they probably should be
lining up behind Baystar with their hand out. If RBC is fronting for M$, and
Microsoft is starting to see SCO's case as a loser, they might also want out,
since Microsoft would rather see linux legally unresolved than see a court rule
against SCO's FUD.
So back to the original question. When will we see RBC sending a letter to SCO
asking for its money back? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 02:27 AM EDT |
From ZDNet:
"We
have come out of the examination process with the strong belief that there are
no meritorious copyright infringement claims in the kernel," ... "With all we
have seen to date, I don't believe they have a strong case."
OSRM's study
compared the generic Linux kernel [...] to several versions of Unix, St. Clair
said, though he refused to say which ones.
Of course SCO denies
it:
"Everything we have looked at and found would run contrary to
what they're finding,"
H@ns [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eisi on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 09:35 AM EDT |
| The Title is: "SCO in Nöten: Investor zieht sich zurück" which is "SCO in
difficulties: Invester backs out."
You can read it
here, in german.
Too lazy to translate, but there are no new facts, as
far as i see. It basically sums up the facts about the Baystar letter, mentions
the development of SCOs stock prices since last october, Halloween X and that
now everyone is waiting what the RBC will do.
Ah, and they give a link to
Groklaw :)
-Eisi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian-from-fl on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 10:56 AM EDT |
Much as I despise the actions of the SCO Group, BayStar is in fact an accessory
to those actions. If they have no one on staff who is able to perform the
required research into their investments, then they ought to chalk up that
investment as a learning experience.
Can BayStar spell "due diligence"? I didn't think so. So how about
starting with "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't true."
What do you think, BayStar? A little professional advice up front would have
gone a long way, don't you think? Now it's too late to claim you were mislead.
You don't go to court without a lawyer and defend yourself. Likewise, you don't
let lawyers and financial consultants make their own technology assessments when
you invest. Darl was as a sweet talking siren leadning the unwary and inept to
their deaths on the rocks.
You're known by the company you keep, and BayStar clearly, faithfully, and
staunchly kept the SCO Group company. But don't worry, BayStar. I have one of
the world's smallest violins, and it's playing "My Heart Bleeds for
You".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AllParadox on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
Something that has not been identified in other posts:
If TSG had filed for bankruptcy, or were forcibly taken into bankruptcy, before
BayStar forced the conversion, then BayStar is just another shareholder, likely
to be redeemed at the price of $.00001 per share, or thereabouts.
It was probably BayStar that panicked when the TSG share prices recently
plummeted, and BayStar that propped up the TSG share price while BayStar
consulted with their attorneys.
Having demanded conversion, and not received it, BayStar can now file for a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)/Restraining Order/Permanent Injunction
demanding their conversion and return of assets. They have no prayer of getting
the whole $20,000,000, and forget about the $24,000,000.
However, they do have a prayer of being on the TSG bankruptcy creditor's
committee, along with IBM and Novell, and being at the party when the TSG pie is
divided up. They may actually get back a few $Million.
RBC, on the other hand, is currently looking at getting back zilch.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 04:41 PM EDT |
eh?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
