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
BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:07 PM EDT

The Salt Lake Tribune says that BayStar confirms that the deal is done:

"'All I can say is that BayStar and SCO have reached an agreement and the transaction has closed,' BayStar spokesman Justin Meise said.

    "SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said when problems arose with the transaction last month, the company had put BayStar's money into an escrow account. 'Now they have contacted us and indicated they want to receive the money and their stock certificates,' he added.    'BayStar is now a common shareholder. There are no more preferred stocks anywhere in SCO,' Stowell said."

And SCO is presumably $13 million poorer. The article indicates that BayStar will be restricted in how fast it can sell its shares, only unloading them at a rate of 10% of the average trading volume for SCOX the previous week. BayStar obtained the shares at $13 each. They are now trading at less than $4.


  


BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal | 328 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: PJP on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:20 PM EDT
Presumably SCOX hung out with this so that the -$13 falls into the next quarter
and they don't have to mention it next week.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Filings? 13G? 13D?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:22 PM EDT
If this deal was completed on 21 July, should there be something filed by now?
And why was baystar that is was not a done deal util yesterday - the same day
that scox re-asserted it was a done deal?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Stuff Goes Here
Authored by: Scriptwriter on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:23 PM EDT
because I have a pome to inflict on the group. :)

---
Don't it always seem to go that you never know what you've got 'til it's gone?
RIP Mike "Moogy" Tuxford 1952-2004

irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections.
Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:23 PM EDT
here.

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and
bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:26 PM EDT
BayStar obtained the shares at $13 each. They are now trading at less than $4.

I'm guessing that Baystar realized that by the time any case makes it thru court, SCO'll be bankrupt, so they're taking the stock so they can sell it before it drops any further.

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: rsi on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:26 PM EDT
"BayStar obtained the shares at $13 each. They are now trading at less than $4. "

Pardon me if I don't shed a tear!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:37 PM EDT
EOM

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Terms of the deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:41 PM EDT
BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:45 PM EDT
Baystar received 20,000 preferred stock for $20 million investment (part of the
$50 million total) they then bought an additional 20,000 for $13.50 per share.
These were preferred options, so it just isn't true that they bought them all
for $13, in addition they got 2 million common shares to replace their 40,000
preferred stock. There's a big difference in the numbers.

Here they get cash *and* common stock, valued at about $20 million total. So
Baystar is about breaking even despite riding a disasterous investment to rock
bottom, it's the small stockholder that's screwed.

Bottom line SCO caved and gave Baystar everything they wanted, albeit partly in
common stock. Is the market waking up to what just happened yet?

Someone please tell me where the downside for Baystar was in this? They seem to
have offloaded all the financial risk on smaller stockholders after pumping this
as an opportunity. Despite their preferred stock landing in the toilet they've
managed to force SCO to give them back just about every cent they've put into
SCO.

SCO, obviously concerned about cash reserves gave Baystar a truckload of common
stock in addition to cash to offset all the cash Baystar was asking for. If I
were a SCO stockholder I'd be pretty pissed off, especially with Baystar who
just raided my piggy bank.

If you gamble like Baystar did and lose you should not be able to reach into the
pockets of other investors and run off with your original investment at their
expense, and that's exactly what Baystar has just done here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: k12linux on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:49 PM EDT
Based on last week's trading, doesn't that limit them to about 10,100 shares a
day for today and tomorrow? Man, at that rate they'll be stuck with SCO stock
for years to come.

Then again maybe the panic selling will start and the trading volumes will go
up. (While the price continues to plummet.)

---
- SCO is trying to save a sinking ship by drilling holes in it. -- k12linux

[ Reply to This | # ]

BayStuck
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:56 PM EDT
I'm not a stock player, but I looked at the numbers a little anyway. Please
correct any bad assumptions:

BayStar has 2,105,263 shares. Since SCOX volume is about 150,000/day, or
750,000/week, they can sell 75,000/week. At that pace, it would take them 6 or 7
months to sell it all.

Selling that much stock in TSG will drive the price to the ground.

Will they sell it, hold it, or what?

---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • BayStuck - Authored by: linuxbikr on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:07 PM EDT
  • BayStuck - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:07 PM EDT
    • BayStuck - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 04:29 AM EDT
  • BayStuck - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:17 PM EDT
    • BayStuck - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 06:55 PM EDT
  • BayStuck - Authored by: Griffin3 on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 04:26 PM EDT
    • BayStuck - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 09:36 PM EDT
  • BayStuck - Authored by: Arker on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 02:55 AM EDT
  • BayStuck - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT
BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:01 PM EDT
As of today, August 26 @ 2:53 PM, SCOG's stock stands at $3.69. Interesting.
Even more interesting is that SCOG's market cap now accurately reflects the $60
million in cash SCOG is theoretically supposed to have. I am "using"
the word theoretically because I am not sure whethe SCOG's cash reserves amount
to $60 mils or $45 mils at this minute, <i>before</i> Baystar pulls
out its $13 mils. Obviously, if SCOG's curent cash position is $45 mils, then
SCOG's stock is overvalued by 25%. Yep, according to Darl the Snarl, SCOG is
winning in the courts and winning in the marketplace. If this is
"winning", losing will be a high profile experience indeed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: arrg on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:33 PM EDT
Can't wait to see this LOL

http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/prn/latu096.P1.08242004163627.2585
7.htm

---
Time is funny stuff, space has it's points too.... - Hap

[ Reply to This | # ]

BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: John M. Horn on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:50 PM EDT
*Shrug* Based upon limited information, it looks like BayStar is, more or less,
breaking even today, at least on paper. The downside is that, in order to break
even on paper today, BayStar had to accept a mountain of common shares of SCO
stock.

Now, SCO stock tends to be unidirectional these days, downwards. As I see it,
BayStar has the following options...

1) Sit on the stock and hope for the second coming or some other miracle.

2) Sell the stock as fast as they can - which should take at least four (4)
months or more - while with each trade the share price plummets.

3) Buy more SCO stock in hope of driving the price upwards - definitely what I
would hope for if I were a small investor in SCO (and hopefully recovering from
the insanity that led me to invest in them in the first place). Of course, we
know that this option is only throwing good money after bad and likely BayStar
knows this too - so this is the most unlikely option.

Any way you look at it, BayStar's options run from unattractive to abyssmal.
They know they are breaking even only on paper and they know they are going to
take a bath before it is all over, the only question is when to jump into the
bathtub and how deep will the water be when they finally take the plunge?

Does this generalization pretty much sum it up...?

John Horn

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO TTL
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:51 PM EDT
Anyone want to recalculate SCO's time to live (TTL) based on their current burn
rate?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Place your bets, Place your bets
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 05:10 PM EDT
Step right up everyone and place your bets.

On what date will SCOX drop below $1/share and stay there?

In the spirit of Merry Christmas, I'm betting Thursday, December 23, 2004. But
it'll be a done deal long before then.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: spamhippy on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 05:59 PM EDT
a related fact from the 'linux doesn't exist'post.....
and some interesting math....

Despite claims that the legal fight is the last gasp of a dying company, he said
the company's cash balance is strong with $US45 million in the bank.

"The legal battle is certainly a cash drain, but we see it as an investment
in our future because there will be a big return at the end. We wouldn't have
started this if we didn't think we could win," he said adding that the
legal costs are burning about $4 million a quarter.

45 mill - 13 mill (baystar deal) = $32 million - $4 mill in legal fees for 3rd
quarter = $28 million

...or in otherwords they've lost 17 million this quarter.

...future math predictions.....

$28 million - 4 mill (legal fees for 4th quarter...)= $24 million - whatever IBM
gets out of them for copyright infringment (see IBM's GPL claims...)= ??

maybe we'll all get a christmas present from IBM this year and no longer have to
put up with SCO's rubbish. while i realize that they're supposed to report
earning here soon... giving last quarter's *outstanding* numbers... i don't
believe there earnings will effect these numbers too much.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: spamhippy on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 06:00 PM EDT
a related fact from the 'linux doesn't exist'post.....
and some interesting math....

Despite claims that the legal fight is the last gasp of a dying company, he said
the company's cash balance is strong with $US45 million in the bank.

"The legal battle is certainly a cash drain, but we see it as an investment
in our future because there will be a big return at the end. We wouldn't have
started this if we didn't think we could win," he said adding that the
legal costs are burning about $4 million a quarter.

45 mill - 13 mill (baystar deal) = $32 million - $4 mill in legal fees for 3rd
quarter = $28 million

...or in otherwords they've lost 17 million this quarter.

...future math predictions.....

$28 million - 4 mill (legal fees for 4th quarter...)= $24 million - whatever IBM
gets out of them for copyright infringment (see IBM's GPL claims...)= ??

maybe we'll all get a christmas present from IBM this year and no longer have to
put up with SCO's rubbish. while i realize that they're supposed to report
earning here soon... giving last quarter's *outstanding* numbers... i don't
believe there earnings will effect these numbers too much.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Baystar already made a profit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 06:03 PM EDT
I'm sure they've sold most of their 2,105,263 shares short already... This lets them cover those short positions, and they aren't limited to 75,000/week when they cover. They probably already sold the shares at well above $13, too. (Probably sold them into the big spike and suring the aftermath.)

date       short_interest     avg_volume     days_to_cover
Aug. 13, 2004   4,581,975    119,440    38.36
Jul. 15, 2004    4,636,010    181,024    ; 25.61
Jun. 15, 2004   4,521,373    209,461    21.59
May 14, 2004   4,622,916    318,923    14.50
Apr. 15, 2004   3,952,844    284,868    13.88
Mar. 15, 2004   2,777,603    314,269    8.84
Feb. 13, 2004   2,407,088    172,895   13.92
Jan. 15, 2004   2,141,937    296,184    7.23
Dec. 15, 2003   2,057,561    264,365    7.78
Nov. 14, 2003   1,616,098    345,608    4.68
Oct. 15, 2003      925,518     376,803    2.46
Sep. 15, 2003     894,777     327,845     2.73

They made an extra $13M by bailing on SCOX, but the guys at Baystar aren't stupid. Now they just have to make it 90 days before SCO files chapter 11 or 7 or gets convicted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 06:08 PM EDT
Ah... the market at work....

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO-X TTL
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 07:35 PM EDT
128 days -1 day

[ Reply to This | # ]

Soon SCO no mo!
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 07:49 PM EDT
Soon SCO will be enjoined from distributing Linux and no one wants their Unix.
A technology company with no technology. The company that Darl built!
Hahahahahahahah!

[ Reply to This | # ]

TTL - last quarter financials
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 08:15 PM EDT
According to a previously mentioned information week
<a
href=http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=21700486>
article</a> SCO lost 7.9 million the previous quarter, with 4.5 million in
legal expenses. That indicates that even with their reduced staff they were
operating at about a 3.4 million loss. If their post Baystar cash was 45
million, they have 6 quarters at this burn rate. They have previously spent
only 2.2 million per quarter on legal expenses. Darl is probably telling the
truth when he projects 2-3 years. (assuming that they drop most of the court
cases and focus exclusively on IBM, fire more staff,
and produce less product).

[ Reply to This | # ]

BayStar Hopes and Prays - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: webster on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 08:49 PM EDT
If you sleep with dogs, you will get fleas. BayStar hopes they are out of this
mess. They are terrified of getting roped into this thing. If IBM wants to
tangle with them, they are toast. They will happily flip a few million to not
be mentioned in any future filings.

What did they invest in? What were they told by SCO? What were they told by
M$? Did they and their lawyers check out the code allegations? Did they do due
diligence? How many million did they lose? What did thkey tell IBM in the
depositions about M$ involvement? What did the execs at IBM tell them about
thie "investment?" Did they get any guarantees? What other
investments deals do they have with M$ and/or SCO? Who tqlked to them from M$?
What did they say to justify such an investment? What did they understand about
the legal representation? What documents were presented to them to make such an
investment? Who is at the end of the pipe? On what basis did they pull out of
this deal? Why did the first buyout balk? What all did you say to IBM at the
depositons?

I just got back from the local bar wher my partner put a woman in my seat. I
left to feed the meter. Parking that is... I had a c urous tykpo after 2 Vodka
tonix....

"IBaM" for "IBM"

i THINK "IBaM" is perfect for the Nazgul. I hope they share the
answers of the above.

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: IMHO SCO already analyzed Linux (it didn't take 25000 years) and found nothing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 01:48 AM EDT
The following is all GUESS WORK as to the redacted sections of IBM-256. I could be completely wrong. It is my OPINION as to the likely content of these sections. It also based on several assumptions (including, but not limited to, the redacted material is all SCO material, that IBM's lawyers don't draw conclusions from thin-air, and that I'm understanding the IBM memo correctly and making the right *GUESSES*).



FWIW here is what I believe and opine are the likely content of these sections (the entire rest of this post):

1. The redacted sections in IBM-256 are almost certainly SCO documents and/or SCO depositions. I believe this because:

(i) If they were IBM documents then IBM would not need to redact them (IBM can disclose its own material as it chooses)

(ii) From context, the 2nd redacted section, must contain something(s) from SCO. This seems clear.

(iii) From content, the 1st redacted section, seems highly likely to contain something from SCO. This seems fairly clear, especially if you review the paragraph after the redacted section carefully.

2. Here are the redacted sections in context, please note the sections of text that I have highlighted in bold. It is my guess that at least some of these are conclusions that are based on the SCO document or deposition that is quoted in the redacted section. I'll discuss these in more detail in a moment


REDACTED SECTION 1

...The undisputable facts are, however, that (1) SCO's public assertions of copyright infringement have been part of this case - at least through IBM's counterclaims for violation of the Lanham Act, unfair competition, and unfair trade practices - since long before IBM added its Tenth Counterclaim, and (2) the only information necessary for SCO to show infringement has been available to SCO since before it even commenced this litigation. Moreover, the principal additional discovery that SCO claims it needs - extensive materials concering IBM's AIX and Dynix operating systems - is wholly irrelevant to IBM's Tenth Counterclaim, which concerns whether code in the Linux operating system infringes allegedly copyrighted material in certain versions of SCO's UNIX operating systems. (See Section III below.)

[pp3/13 REDACTED half page]

[pp4/14 REDACTED three quarter page]

SCO's oppostion papers thus seek only to perpetuate the fear, uncertainty and doubt it has fostered regarding Linux. Rather than substantiate its public claims that it has "mountains" and "truckloads" of evidence of copyright infringement, SCO demands delay. Indeed, SCO goes so far as to content that it could take 25,000 man-years for SCO to determine whether Linux infringes SCO's purported UNIX copyrights. SCO's request for delay is nothing but gamesmanship. After more than a year-and-a-half of litigation, and despite its claims to have done "a deep dive into Linux" and "compare the source code of Linux with Unix every which way but Tuesday", it is clear that SCO has no, and never has had any, evidence of copyright infringement. (See Section IV below.).

Thoughts

(a) My *speculative* *guess* is that the section "(2) the only information necessary for SCO to show infringement..." may appear in the SCO quote. Perhaps in a deposition SCO were asked how would you determine if Linux infringes Unix, and they said compare the two. Perhaps an internal SCO documents says that. Of course IBM makes this point themselves in their other arguments, so it could be that (2) doesn't reference the redacted section at all. Hence the highly speculative nature of this guess.

(b) The bold part after the redacted section, is more telling: "it is clear that SCO has no, and never has had any, evidence of copyright infringement". In the redacted version, this one just springs from thin-air. Therefore, it seems highly likely that it must follow from whatever is in the SCO document/deposition that is quoted.


REDACTED SECTION 2

pp41/51-pp43/53

Third, SCO's related claim that it "has not been given a reasonable opportunity to complete any of the kinds of comparisons necessary to uncover facts relevant to SCO's opposition to IBM's motion for summary judgment" (Harrop Decl para67) and that it could take SCO "25,000 man-years" (Sontag Decl para14) to complete its analysis is also contradicted by its public statements and internal documents concerning the analyses SCO has already performed. For the the purposes of opposing this motion, SCO pretends as if it has only recently begun to analyze whether Linux infringes its purported UNIX copyrights. In public, however, SCO has been touting for more than a year now that it has already had "teams" of "outside consultants" review Linux, and that SCO has "substantial" evidence of copyright infringement. For example:

(followed by by a bulleted list of SCO public statements)

* Given SCO's extensive public statements that it has as SCO's CEO put it in November 2003, "done a deep dive into Linux" and "compared the source code of Linux with Unix every which way but Tuesday", "Reply Ex. 6) SCO's present assertion in opposition to IBM's motion that SCO has not had sufficient time to perform the requisite analyses of Linux and UNIX code it claims to have copyrighted, and that such analyses could take 25,000 man-years, obviously rings hollow. It appears that SCO's litigation strategy now is simply to seek delay for delay's sake. SCO, by its own admission, has already performed the analyses it needed, but has not come forward with any evidence that would a [sic] create a genuine issue of material fact as to copyright infringement in this case. In this situation, summary judgment is appropriate; SCO should not be given additional time to perform analyses it has already performed and have apparently (despite SCO's public claims) turned up nothing.

[pp43/53 REDACTED half page]

[pp44/54 REDACTED three quarter page]

As reviewed here, SCO appears willing to adopt, in court and in the media, whatever position is most expedient under the circumstances, without regard either to consistency or the truth. SCO has spun, and continues to spin, a tangled web of inconsistencies to avoid resolution of the claims it has made against IBM's and others' use of the Linux kernel. SCO's opposition to IBM's motion is just more of the same gamesmanship - intended solely to procure further delay so that SCO might profit from the fear, uncertainty and doubt that it has fostered regarding Linux.

Thoughts

No where do IBM deny SCO did an analysis (although they don't ever say that SCO had three teams involving MIT mathematicians!). In fact they say
  • "internal documents concerning the analyses SCO has already performed"
  • "SCO, by its own admission, has already performed the analyses it needed"
N.B. I believe "but has not come forward with any evidence that would a [sic] create a genuine issue of material fact as to copyright infringement in this case" is a conclusion that IBM draw from SCO's opposition memo to CC10 PSJ, rather than something in the SCO documents/depositions.


CONCLUSIONS:

So, I believe, at least the following IBM statements, are probably based on SCO internal documents, SCO depositions:
  • "it is clear that SCO has no, and never has had any, evidence of copyright infringement"
  • "internal documents concerning the analyses SCO has already performed"
  • "SCO, by its own admission, has already performed the analyses it needed"
It also seems possible that this IBM statement is based on IBM's argument, but also perhaps something from SCO:
  • "(2) the only information necessary for SCO to show infringement has been available to SCO since before it even commenced this litigation."
It is seems especially possible, because there are apparently "internal documents concerning the analyses SCO has already performed".


So the final conclusion
  1. SCO did do some sort of analysis (maybe not the 3 teams of outside/MIT experts! Perhaps it was all internal SCO staff?)
  2. SCO's analysis is already complete, and didn't take 25,000 years, and didn't require every iteration of AIX and Dynix
  3. SCO already compared UNIX and Linux
  4. SCO found no copyright infringement
There appear to be SCO internal documents, or SCO deposition testimony confirming points 1-3.

There may be SCO internal documents, or SCO deposition testimony confirming point 4. Alternatively IBM may be drawing the conclusion based on SCO's failure to produce any evidence in response to IBM's PSJ motion on CC 10.


Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

Disclaimer Again: The entire content of this post is OPINION and GUESSES, as to what the sections may POSSIBLY contain.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Good article on more M$ shenanigans.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 06:43 AM EDT
http://www.serverwatch.com/eur/article.php/3400451

enjoy! :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

A heads up on another M$ scheme.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 08:50 AM EDT
the Inquirer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why the bad lawyering?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 10:28 AM EDT
Lets ignore for a second that the case has no merit. Why do 4 highly paid law
firms produce such poor filings? We have seen multiple formal errors and
blunders on SCO's side, and especially the reply to the CC10 summary judgement
is full of them. How can they charge millions of dollars (double digit) for such
terrible disservice to their client? Aren't these law firms concerned that
somebody (bar? canopy?) will come after them for incompetency? They didn't even
refute IBM's statement of facts for crying out loud.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 10:40 AM EDT
Wonderful! Could one of our Australian growlawyers please print it out and mail
it to O'Shaughnessey?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - SCOG Earnings Conference on Tuesday, 31st August 2004
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 10:56 AM EDT
I understand from the Yahoo finance Board that we are getting a free lecture on
SCOGnomics on 31 August 2004. The SCOG management is due to announce several
initiatives - and I'd be very interested which of those involve threats of
death, mutilation, financial ruin and sundry other goodies. If the SCOG
management copyrights their conference call, I suggest that we lodge a complaint
with the SEC as SCOG is a publicly owned company that is improperly trying to
control and restrict the distribution of public information as to the
performance of its duties, and that public information has to be unconditionally
available to all including those who don't wish SCOG well and who really want to
put SCOG into the ground.

[ 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 )