decoration decoration
Stories

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
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

  1. 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.
  2. All documents concerning any communications with SCO and/or Canopy.
  3. All documents concerning any meetings with SCO and/or Canopy.
  4. All documents concerning any agreements or understandings (written or oral) with or relating to SCO and/or Canopy.
  5. All documents concerning any communications with Microsoft Corp. ("Microsoft") regarding Unix, Linux, SCO and/or Canopy.
  6. All documents concerning any meetings involving Microsoft regarding Unix, Linux, SCO and/or Canopy.
  7. 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.
  8. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. The term "concerning" shall mean relating to, referring to, reflecting, describing, evidencing, referencing, discussing or constituting.
  4. 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.
  5. The term "including" shall mean including without limitation.
  6. The term "lawsuit" shall mean the action entitled The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines, Civil No. 2:03CV-0294.
  7. 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.
  8. The term "person" shall mean any natural person or any private or public entity.
  9. 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.
  10. 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

  1. Each paragraph should herein be construed independently and, unless otherwise directed, without reference to any other paragraph for the purpose of limitation.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Each page or sheet produced is to be marked with a consecutive document control number.
  5. 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.
  6. All documents produced in response to this subpoena shall be produced, where available, in electronic or machine-readable form.


  


IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody | 299 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
Authored by: Juggler9 on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 12:57 AM EDT
Why not Baystar, RBC and Microsoft?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

Somewhat O.T.
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 | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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: 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 | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

THE reason for Oracle
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 | # ]

Why Oracle?
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 | # ]

Where is SUN?
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 | # ]

"This should keep you busy. "
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 | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

IBM: All your doc are belong to us!
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 | # ]

Definition of Unix
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 | # ]

Why Novell??
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 | # ]

S2's lawyer made a mistake in the 'Objections to Subpoena'
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 | # ]

CA and Center7 links are wrong
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 | # ]

Glaring Omission?!?!
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 | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

Where's Tarantella?
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 | # ]

Why all the different Federal Courts?
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 | # ]

Thanks Darl, Thanks IBM
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 | # ]

The Target: IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

Why not Tarentella?
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Friday, April 23 2004 @ 11:34 AM EDT
Have they been subpoenaed already?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

Why Oracle?
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 | # ]

Oracle is here because....
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 | # ]

The reason Oracle is there
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 | # ]

Why not Microsoft?
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
Hello EV1
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 | # ]

Transcribing
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 | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

M$ Speculations
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 | # ]

Transcribing
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:

  1. SCO's cover sheet doesn't seem to acknowledge that they are defendants by countersuit.
  2. 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 | # ]

Collect SCO licence correspondence
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 | # ]

RBC Hedge Client
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 | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

IBM Subpoenas Almost Everybody
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )