|
IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody |
|
Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:44 AM EDT
|
This should keep you busy. IBM has subpoenaed almost everyone, including the following: Go to page three on each of these to find what they have each been asked to produce. Who is missing? Um. Microsoft? Let's stay tuned. There will undoubtedly be more subpoenas to come. And they do ask S2, Morgan Keegan and Royce for all documents concerning any communications with or any meetings involving Microsoft regarding Unix, Linux, SCO and/or Canopy. What puzzles me is, what is Oracle doing here? They ask Oracle to produce all documents concerning any "agreements or understandings (written or oral) between Oracle and SCO", as well as any documents concerning any communications or any meetings with SCO and/or Canopy regarding Unix or Linux. They ask Novell for all documents having to do with the BSDi case. And they ask Canopy for all documents from the Caldera, Inc. v. Microsoft case, including but not limited to documents concerning the destruction of the documents from the action.
For example, thanks to Steve Martin's nimble fingers, here is Morgan Keegan's list:
***********************************************************************
ATTACHMENT A TO SUBPOENA TO MORGAN KEEGAN & CO., INC
You are instructed to produce the following documents at the time and
place specified in the subpoena.
Documents To Be Produced
-
All documents concerning this Lawsuit (including SCO's claims
and IBM's defenses and counterclaims), including but not limited to all documents
concerning: (a) SCO's alleged evidence in support of its claims; and (b) any statement,
affidavit, declaration, analysis, assessment or opinion concerning this Lawsuit or SCO's
alleged rights or evidence.
-
All documents concerning any communications with SCO and/or
Canopy.
-
All documents concerning any meetings with SCO and/or Canopy.
-
All documents concerning any agreements or understandings
(written or oral) with or relating to SCO and/or Canopy.
-
All documents concerning any communications with Microsoft
Corp. ("Microsoft") regarding Unix, Linux, SCO and/or Canopy.
-
All documents concerning any meetings involving Microsoft
regarding Unix, Linux, SCO and/or Canopy.
-
All documents concerning any services performed for SCO and/or
Canopy, including but not limited to all services performed pursuant to the contract dated
August 16, 2002 between Caldera International, Inc. and Morgan Keegan & Co., as
amended on February 13, 2003.
-
All documents concerning any (actual or potential) investment or
ownership interest in SCO made or held by Morgan Keegan & Co., including but not
limited to documents concerning the decision to invest and/or the terms of the
investment.
Instructions and Definitions
The instructions, definitions, and rules contained in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, including in particular Rule 45, and the local rules or individual
practices of this Court are incorporated herein by reference and supplemented with the
following definitions and instructions:
A. Definitions
-
The term "communication" shall mean any transmittal of
information, whether oral or written including correspondence, electronic mail and other
internet transmissions, web pages, Internet Relay Chat logs, instant messages, telexes,
facsimile transmissions, telecopies, recordings in any medium of oral communication,
telephone or message logs, or notes or memoranda concerning written or oral
communications.
-
The term "Canopy" shall mean and include, collectively and/or
individually, The Canopy Group and all its directors, officers, authorized agents,
employees, consultants, attorneys, representatives, direct and indirect contractors, and/or
all other persons acting on behalf of The Canopy Group.
-
The term "concerning" shall mean relating to, referring to,
reflecting, describing, evidencing, referencing, discussing or constituting.
-
The term "document" shall be synonymous in meaning and usage
with the broadest scope of the term used in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The term "document" shall include without limitation all written, phonic,
graphic or recorded matter, including without limitation, information stored on
computers, disks, tapes (i.e., magnetic or other storage media), World Wide Web pages,
electronic mailing lists or automated fax support systems. The term "document"
specifically includes electronic mail, electronic correspondence, or electronic peer-to-peer
messages ("e-mail") and any attachments and files created and maintained in
electronic form in the normal course of business.
-
The term "including" shall mean including without limitation.
-
The term "lawsuit" shall mean the action entitled The SCO Group,
Inc. v. International Business Machines, Civil No. 2:03CV-0294.
-
The term "Morgan Keegan & Co." shall mean and include,
collectively and/or individually, Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., and all its directors,
officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, representatives, direct and
indirect contractors, and/or all other persons acting on behalf of Morgan Keegan & Co.,
Inc.
-
The term "person" shall mean any natural person or any private or public entity.
-
The term "SCO" shall mean and include, collectively and/or
individually, plaintiff Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO
Group, Inc., and all its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants,
attorneys, sales representatives, direct and indirect contractors, entities that were in part
or in whole acquired by or merged with Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International,
Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc., affiliates, subsidiaries or predecessor companies of Caldera
Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The SCO Group, Inc., and/or all other
persons acting on behalf of Caldera Systems, Inc., Caldera International, Inc., or The
SCO Group, Inc. This includes the Server Software and Professional Services divisions
acquired in 2001 by Caldera International, Inc. from Tarantella, Inc., f/k/a The Santa
Cruz Operation, Inc.
-
The term "Unix" shall mean any and all versions, flavors, or other
variants of any Unix operating system, including but not limited to all operating
systems certified as conforming to the Unix-brand standards set by The Open Group, the
owner of the Unix trademark.
B. Instructions
-
Each paragraph should herein be construed independently and,
unless otherwise directed, without reference to any other paragraph for the purpose of
limitation.
-
The use of any definition for the purposes of this request shall not be
deemed to constitute an agreement or acknowledgement on the part of IBM that such
definition is accurate, meaningful, or appropriate for any other purpose in this action.
-
Each requested document shall be produced in its entirety. If a
document responsive to any request cannot be produced in full, it shall be produced to the
extent possible with an explanation stating why production of the remainder is not
possible.
-
Each page or sheet produced is to be marked with a consecutive
document control number.
-
All documents produced in response to this subpoena shall be
produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained in the ordinary course of
business and, where attached, shall not be separated or disassembled.
-
All documents produced in response to this subpoena shall be
produced, where available, in electronic or machine-readable form.
|
|
Authored by: Juggler9 on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:57 AM EDT |
Why not Baystar, RBC and Microsoft? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fava on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:14 AM EDT |
The scheduled dates for all these depositions was April 2 and 8. We only know
of one (S2) that objected. Can we resonablly assume that all the rest went off
as scheduled?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:19 AM EDT |
After IBM gets this first round of documents, and then when they do the same
with RBC, Baystar, and Microsoft, the amount of information available on this
whole scheme is going to be astonishing. Who knows where the threads will lead.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:24 AM EDT |
Everyone's Internet - "All documents concerning any communications with
Microsoft regarding Unix, Linux, SCO and/or Canopy."
Ha! IBM is going to expose the whole scam.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:26 AM EDT |
Hokay... so... Baystar admits funding the lawsuit-happy SCO for purposes of
supporting their litigation.
Let's say that they demand and get their money back.
Let's also look forward to the potential that TSG falls flat on their claims
against IBM, et.al. and that the countersuits do NOT fall flat. And also that
the counterclaims specify awards in excess of TSG's remaining asset value.
Can IBM and any other entity owed money by TSG from these suits then go after
Baystar for that money? Since Baystar and RBC are, in essence, financing this
scharade by TSG, isn't TSG kind of the proxy in the middle? (I don't know how
else to describe it... not sure my meaning is clear.)
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Highlander on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:28 AM EDT |
Sweet.
IBM keeps tightening the noose.
I am wondering why on earth Oracle is there, unless it relates to one or more of
the patent infringements?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody - Authored by: fb on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:56 AM EDT
- Thoughts on Oracle - Authored by: rand on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:15 AM EDT
- IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:21 AM EDT
- Why Oracle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:44 AM EDT
- Why Oracle? - Authored by: old joe on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:43 AM EDT
- Why Oracle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 09:02 AM EDT
- Why Oracle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:40 PM EDT
- IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody - Authored by: Paul Shirley on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:59 AM EDT
- Oracle - Authored by: surak on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 10:00 AM EDT
- IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody - Authored by: meat straw on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:25 PM EDT
- IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody - Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 08:19 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:30 AM EDT |
If there are any Skeletons in Microsoft's closet regarding this case and/or
linux, we might see a real fast shift in their support of SCO. It might behoove
them to try to see this suit go away ASAP. If that means killing off SCO to do
it, so be it. :)
Could they now be leaning on Baystar (and others) to help kill SCO?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MyPersonalOpinio on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:32 AM EDT |
Microsoft better ensure SCO goes under before things get to them. Settling with
IBM may not be an easy "cost of doing business"
A question: is it normal to
use a Private Investigator for serving subpoenas? (e.g., see Canopy's subpoena
personally delivered to Yarro, Center 7's also was delivered by the same PI) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:35 AM EDT |
for some time the only way to run Oracle on Linux was to run the UnixWare
version with significant drudge work needed to set it up properly.
I've forgotten if the SysV libraries were needed (I vaguely remember that they
were but I may be mistaken) & how they were to be gotten if you didn't have
them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:39 AM EDT |
As I recall, Oracle partnered with Caldera early on in their Linux migration.
And it would seem that Oracce still retains a relationship with the SCOundrals.
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why Oracle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:46 AM EDT
- Why Oracle? - Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:51 AM EDT
- Why Oracle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:01 AM EDT
- Why Oracle? - Authored by: dbc on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:09 AM EDT
- Why Oracle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:51 PM EDT
- Why Oracle? - Authored by: nvanevski on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:40 AM EDT
|
Authored by: MyPersonalOpinio on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:45 AM EDT |
I forgot to ask: Where is SUN?
Why is IBM only asking for documents
regarding Microsoft?. What was it that SUN purchased could have a quite
interesting answer (considering that SUN already had extensive Unix rights
before the purchase)
Maybe they're saving it for later? :> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Where is SUN? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:00 AM EDT
- Where is SUN? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:24 AM EDT
- Where is SUN? - Authored by: wllacer on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:01 AM EDT
- Where is SUN? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- Where is SUN? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:10 PM EDT
- Where is SUN? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 05:05 AM EDT
|
Authored by: rand on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 01:57 AM EDT |
Maybe...just noticed that new docs are up at TuxRocks.
This one's a hoot: Declaration of Chris Sontag
Re: [109-1] order Chris admits that they haven't fully complied with the
March 3rd Order, and is still whining that they need all of AIX and
Dynix. --- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" (IANAL and so forth and so on) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ujay on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:01 AM EDT |
What puzzles me is, what is Oracle doing here? They ask Oracle to produce all
documents concerning any "agreements or understandings (written or oral) between
Oracle and SCO", as well as any documents concerning any communications or any
meetings with SCO and/or Canopy regarding Unix or Linux.
That was my
first question when I saw Oracle listed. Thinking about it for a bit, Oracle is
one of the major players in the database market, with a long standing history in
the unix base. They also offer a Windows based database engine, and I recall a
Linux distro as well. From their web site faq Currently Red Hat Enterprise
Linux AS and SUSE SLES8 are certified.
There will be contracts between
Oracle and a number of Unix vendors (and at least Red Hat), and we can see IBM
is after the efforts and agreements concerning confidentiality and disclosure of
Unix code. As SCO's Unix and Linux distros/rights would probably be involved
(with their connections to Red Hat and Novell), it begins to make sense.
I
noticed the items regarding confidentiality v disclosure in most of the
subpeonas, making it appear they are making a list of prior efforts to maintain
confidentiality compared to agreements to allow disclosure, thus making the
claim of IP rights irrelevant for any code in the disclosure list.
Can you
say 'lock and load?'
--- Programmer: A biological system designed to
convert coffee and cheesies into code [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dbc on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:15 AM EDT |
... oops... for a minute there I forgot I wasn't on Slashdot... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: zenguin on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:31 AM EDT |
I just happened to notice that they have used a different definition of
"Unix" for Morgan Keegan.
For EV1, Oracle, CAI, Center7, Novell, S2:
The term "Unix" shall mean all predecessors to, and versions of, the
Unix System V computer operating system, including but not limited to: Unix
System III; Unix System IV; Unix System V; Unix System V Release 2; Unix System
Release 3; Unix System V Release 4; Unix System V/286; and/or Unix System
V/386.
However, for Morgan Keegan:
The term "Unix" shall mean any and all versions, flavors, or other
variants of any Unix computer operating system, including but not limited to all
operating systems certified as conforming to the Unix-brand standards set by The
Open Group, the owner of the Unix trademark.
I like the last bit. Could it just be a dig at SCO's "owner of the UNIX
operating system" press releases?
Z.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:33 AM EDT |
I'm totally confused. Why is *Novell* in that list also???
They seemed to be 100% allies with IBM. Anybody please explain.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bonzai on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:50 AM EDT |
Earlier this week we saw S2's
Objections to Subpoena but there was something weird with the request 7 and
8.
REQUEST NO. 5: All documents concerning any
communications with Microsoft Corporation
("Microsoft").
RESPONSE: Objection. S2 objects that
...
REQUEST NO. 6: All documents concerning any meetings with
Microsoft.
RESPONSE: Objection. S2 objects that
...
REQUEST NO. 7: All documents concerning any meetings with
BayStar.
RESPONSE: S2 is unaware of any such documents within
its possession, custody or control.
REQUEST NO. 8: All documents
concerning any meetings with BayStar.
RESPONSE: S2 is unaware of
any such documents within its possession, custody or
control.
REQUEST NO. 9: All documents concerning any
communications with Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC").
RESPONSE: S2
is unaware of any such documents within its possession, custody or
control.
Now we have the Subpoena and this is what IBM's
lawyers asked:
...
5. All documents concerning any
communications with Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft").
6. All documents
concerning any meetings with Microsoft.
7. All documents concerning any
communications with BayStar Capital ("BayStar").
8. All documents concerning
any meetings with BayStar.
9. All documents concerning any communications
with Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC").
...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 05:41 AM EDT |
i.e. CAI links to Center7 document and vice versa. Not a biggie. Just thought
I'd mention it[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 06:31 AM EDT |
What about one slimey little investment banker, Brian Skiba and his sorry bunch
of henchmen at Duetsche Bahn(DB). He was the one, you will remember, with the
$45 target price that he reiterated about every 2 weeks. Oh, and, by the way, he
no longer works for DB. As a matter of fact, I have not heard from Mr. Skiba in
quite some time.
How could the nazgul have missed this one?!?
Or is it the lowly me that is missing it?!?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:17 AM EDT |
And they ask Canopy for all documents from the Caldera, Inc.
v. Microsoft case, [...]
Um, didn't IBM already ask
TSG for this very stuff in discovery? Why, yes, indeed,
they
did:
REQUEST NO. 58
All documents concerning
the unfair competition lawsuit brought by plaintiff against Microsoft
Corporation.
RESPONSE:
This request seeks documents
that are irrelevant to the issues in this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REQUEST NO.
59
All documents concerning the destruction of documents relating
to the unfair competition lawsuit brought by plaintiff against Microsoft
Corporation.
RESPONSE:
This request seeks documents
that are irrelevant to the issues in this lawsuit and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, most or all of these
documents were destroyed pursuant to a court order from the United States
District Court.
It'll be interesting to see what (if anything)
Canopy turns up that TSG said was "irrelevant" or "[was]
destroyed".
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." --
Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:53 AM EDT |
Sounds like IBM is looking to take SCO's head off. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:23 AM EDT |
Curious that IBM passed them by, given that newSCO has claimed to have lost
the oldSCO/Caldera agreements...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:43 AM EDT |
A question about Federal Court logistics. I noticed that the various subpoenas
were issued by different Federal Courts (Court of Eastern New York, Court of
Tennessee, etc.) I would have expected them all to be issued by the Federal
Court in Utah hearing the case. It appears each subpoena was issued by the
Federal Court local to the office of each subpoena's target. Why is that? How
does that work?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gtoomey on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
We are truly lucky in having having someone with the Darl's monumental
incompetence runnning SCO. Hail Darl McBride, the Basil Fawlty of Information
Technology!
Whether it take 2 months or 2 years SCO is doomed. In the meantime we have
amassed an enormous warchest of information to support Linux & the GPL.
And all the subpoenas will give us plenty of ammunition against the real enemy,
Micro$oft. Obviously Micro$oft will get a subpoena soon too and we see how it
fits in with Baystar & S2. Thanks IBM lawyers.
Hopefully there will be enough dirt to support future antitrust actions against
Microsoft, especially in Europe. Perhaps another $600 million fine?
Keep up the good work Darl. We hope you keep you job as long as possible before
Chapter 11.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
We all thought that IBM intended to make an example out of SCO, so
nobody would be tempted to try this again.
After reading the subpoenas, it's pretty clear that their aim now is to put
Microsoft's head on a pike, so nobody will ever be tempted to screw with
them again.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:34 AM EDT |
Have they been subpoenaed already? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:10 PM EDT |
Wait, Subpoenas are normal, it is the legal way you get people into court in a
case. This should not be taken out of context.
I see why Microsoft, BayStar are not there... can you ?...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
To me it seems IBM isn't the least defensive. It is dangerously offensive. Will
they deal a crippling blow to M$?
Or they could also be tamed like Sun and other firms?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
The Oracle one is suprising to me too, perhaps IBM is wondering why they aren't
targeted, considering that they too have contributed to Linux...
http://otn.oracle.com/tech/linux/htdocs/ocfs_faq_110602.html
http://www.caldera.com/partners/oracle/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sam on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
Oracle is here because IBM is going to hold SCO to the same contract
interpretation for AIX and Dynix and the "secrecy" language that they
afforded to Oracle. Oracle has a Unix license, No? Oracle has a derivative
offering, No? IBM is entitled to the same contract interpretations as Oracle.
---
Don't forget. IAAL. (I am a layman.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
I bet they are the "Fortune 500 Licensee" that didn't want to be identified back
in summer of 2003. Just a hunch...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 03:16 PM EDT |
IBM doesn't want to suffer another acrimonious argument with an ex-spouse. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Soon - Authored by: codswallop on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:45 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
Big suprise! Looks like your SCO IP license doesn't protect you from legal
entanglement after all. In fact, it seems that just the opposite has occurred.
K.H.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hello EV1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- Hello EV1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:59 PM EDT
- Hello EV1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 06:36 PM EDT
- Hardly an accident - Authored by: codswallop on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 07:43 PM EDT
- Hello EV1 - Authored by: crs17 on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 12:57 PM EDT
- Hello EV1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 08:29 PM EDT
|
Authored by: darkonc on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
I've split out all of the separate pages from the PDF's They can be found on my
website
http://groklaw.bcgreen.com/
SCO/IBM/subpoena/
Claim any pages (or whole documents) that you are
transcribing here. If you're transcribing entire documents, you might as well
submit the result direct to PJ. If
you're doing singular pages, submit them to
me, and I'll put the pieces together.
If you prefer the files in
other formats (for doing OCR), let me know via my soubmit form, and I'll see
what I can do.
--- Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel
within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 04:48 PM EDT |
I guess Big Blue learned something from Deep Blue...
Nice little chess
analogy at Yahoo SCOX board:
here
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 05:39 PM EDT |
The newspapers have reported that Microsoft is settling many of the lawsuits in
which it is currently involved.
Could this be so that its lawyers will be able to focus their attention on
impending shootouts? First with IBM about supporting SCO in an attempt to take
down Linux. Second with the judge handling the monopoly settlement. Third, the
Linux community?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darkonc on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 06:32 PM EDT |
broken out PDF's are now available:
Tod
Shaughnessy,
Chris Sontag
and
IBM's
certificate of service
Claim your favorite page (or document)
here.
Silly notes:
- SCO's cover sheet doesn't seem to acknowledge
that they are defendants by countersuit.
- Chris Sontag couldn't get the
county right, and he's not even bothering to reprint his submission to
correct
the error..
(
Yet another sign that they're not taking this
multi-million dollar process seriously. )
--- Powerful, committed
communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gtoomey on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
Does anybody have correspondence with SCO regarding their "Linux
Licences"?
The EV1 subpoena means that IBM lawyers want correrpondence about the
"Linux Licences". Lets give them more ammunition & collect
correspondence any of us have had about these "Licences".
The bonus is nobody will want a "Linux Licence" as all they do is
embroil you in a lawsuit.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 03:41 AM EDT |
One of the issues that many Groksters hope comes out, as a result of the IBM
requests or otherwise, is the identity of the RBC "hedge" investor.
SEC
Regulation 13D-G generally requires holders of 5% or more of a company (directly
or indirectly, including holders of an option to acquire 5% or more) to file
reports with the SEC (which are then available to the public via EDGAR)
disclosing their identity and ownership. While the RBC position economically
represents more than 5% of SCO, Article XIV.B of the Preferred Stock Certificate
of Designation, provides that the Pfd cannot be converted into more than 4.99%
of the SCO common shares (the remainder gets converted into cash). This
provision is apparently for the express purpose of avoiding the Schedule 13D-G
disclosure requirement (as well as NASDAQ shareholder approval requirements and
maybe other legal requirements).
RBC (like BayStar), however, has been given
the right to veto lawsuit settlements and other major corporate actions.
Additionally, the existence of the BayStar redemption request puts a great deal
of power in RBC's hands -- basically, if RBC itself makes a redemption request,
SCO stock would rapidly lose a good portion of its value. It may be possible to
argue that these unusual rights effectively give RBC control over SCO of a sort
that should have required it to make Schedule 13D-G disclosure of its position,
regardless of the impact of Article XIV.B.
Why do we care about RBC making this
disclosure? We don't. But RBC is likely to have "passed on" its veto and
redemption declaration rights to its hedge investor, by agreeing to exercise
them only upon the instruction of the hedge investor. In that case, the
question would be: Shouldn't the hedge investor have been making the Schedule
13D-G disclosure? Also, if the hedge investor has such rights and SCO knows who
the hedge investor is, isn't the identity of the hedge investor material
information for holders and potential holders of SCO stock (which SCO should
then have publicly disclosed), given that the hedge investor's identity may say
something about its motivations for investing in SCO and thus likelihood of
vetoeing major transactions or seeking a redemption?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2004 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
I wonder if the link between the SCO group, the TAK group and Microsoft is just
coincidence.
http://www.takgroup.net/TakGroup/companyAllianceFeatured.jsp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 09:06 AM EDT |
Of course I have no proof, only my suspicions. Let's
see though, no one locally in Salt Lake City in terms
of government officials is even remotely interested in
investigating SCO. SEC appears to be doing
nothing. US congress people are ignoring
complaints about SCO' letters to congress people.
Or siding with it. Religion has long been involved
with politics and vice versa. Politics and religion are
power. Tied to power is money. It all fits together
doens't it? That said, the mormons have long been
tied to the freemasons, who in turn have been tied to
the Illuminati. They are the ones who really run the
world. Of course, you or me would never find proof of
them. And even if we did, who'd believe us? Make no
mistake, don't be surprised if SCO wins.
Dave [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|