|
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.
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- There's no such thing as Linux -- a pome by Scriptwriter - Authored by: Scriptwriter on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:26 PM EDT
- The Bearing Point 's math is WRONG - MS, Get Your Facts Straight - Authored by: dgetzin on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:43 PM EDT
- Off Topic Stuff Goes Here - Authored by: Greebo on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- Big Yellow Taxi (nitpick) - Authored by: TimMann on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- Poem not pome.... - Authored by: frk3 on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:14 PM EDT
- Way O/T - Free as in speech??? - Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- "Judge allows ACEMLA to copright stolen Music" - US fix your broken systems! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- pome? poem? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- pome? poem? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 06:33 PM EDT
- Planted Code in Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 05:19 PM EDT
- Off Topic Stuff Goes Here - Authored by: lifewish on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 07:22 PM EDT
- A British Thing - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 10:04 AM EDT
- Off Topic Stuff Goes Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- Off NPR Linux special - Authored by: echeadle on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 08:37 PM EDT
- O/T Europe Opens Another Microsoft Inquiry. - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 09:21 PM EDT
- O/T Mobile hard drive carries Linux - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 11:13 PM EDT
- stupid MSN trick to break mozilla/opera?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 11:35 PM EDT
- O/T Since AOL can't be bothered, Linspire do it for them. - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 11:36 PM EDT
- O/T UN sets up Open Source Agency - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 11:54 PM EDT
- Marbux and AllParadox question - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 12:59 AM EDT
- BROWSE FRIENDLY. - Authored by: Franki on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 01:19 AM EDT
- Where are SCO's Replies? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 03:05 AM EDT
- SenderID is dead, long live SenderID - Authored by: cpw on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 07:18 AM EDT
- Linspire Dials AOL For Linux Users - Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 09:09 AM EDT
- The New World order (as of 1999) - Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 09:33 AM EDT
- A Laugh at some old Microsoft news - Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 09:46 AM EDT
- OT: Microsoft: Hackers Wouldn't Bother To Spoof SP2's Security Center - Authored by: johan on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 09:52 AM EDT
- O/T Biggest UK employer tries 5000 Linux desktops. - Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- Most Excellent Pome by Scriptwriter - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 11:12 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:53 PM EDT
- BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:53 PM EDT
- BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:03 PM EDT
- BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:25 PM EDT
- The numbers add up - Authored by: markus on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:26 PM EDT
- Your RBOC figures look like nonsense, please give source - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- BayStar Confirms - It's a Done Deal - Authored by: walth on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 03:57 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 $13M by bailing on SCOX, but the
guys at Baystar aren't
stupid. Now they just have to make it 90 days before
SCO files chapter 11 or
7 or gets convicted.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
Ah... the market at work.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 07:35 PM EDT |
128 days -1 day [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
Soon SCO will be enjoined from distributing Linux and no one wants their Unix.
A technology company with no technology. The company that Darl built!
Hahahahahahahah![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 08:15 PM EDT |
According to a previously mentioned information week
<a
href=http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=21700486>
article</a> SCO lost 7.9 million the previous quarter, with 4.5 million in
legal expenses. That indicates that even with their reduced staff they were
operating at about a 3.4 million loss. If their post Baystar cash was 45
million, they have 6 quarters at this burn rate. They have previously spent
only 2.2 million per quarter on legal expenses. Darl is probably telling the
truth when he projects 2-3 years. (assuming that they drop most of the court
cases and focus exclusively on IBM, fire more staff,
and produce less product).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 08:49 PM EDT |
If you sleep with dogs, you will get fleas. BayStar hopes they are out of this
mess. They are terrified of getting roped into this thing. If IBM wants to
tangle with them, they are toast. They will happily flip a few million to not
be mentioned in any future filings.
What did they invest in? What were they told by SCO? What were they told by
M$? 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 | # ]
|
|
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
- SCO did do
some sort of analysis (maybe not the 3 teams of outside/MIT experts! Perhaps it
was all internal SCO staff?)
- SCO's analysis is already complete, and didn't
take 25,000 years, and didn't require every iteration of AIX and Dynix
- SCO
already compared UNIX and Linux
- 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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 06:43 AM EDT |
http://www.serverwatch.com/eur/article.php/3400451
enjoy! :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 08:50 AM EDT |
the Inquirer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|