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
Blake Stowell and Laura DiDio on the Canopy Shakeup
Friday, December 24 2004 @ 08:32 AM EST

It wouldn't be complete without them, would it? So here you go: Blake Stowell and Laura DiDio speak about the Canopy Group shakeup, as opposed to, some might say, the goode olde days of the shakedown. eWeek's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols got them both to tell him What It All Means:

"Many people are wondering what effects, if any, these upper management changes will have on SCO and its Linux/Unix-related lawsuits with IBM and other companies.

"Stowell said there would be 'no changes at this time. Ralph Yarro remains our chairman, Darcy Mott remains a board member, and Canopy remains a majority shareholder of SCO.'

I'm sure their positions are rock solid, no doubt about it. Blake has always been such a straight shooter. I'll never forget his statements when DaimlerChrysler trounced them at the hearing last July. One of our eyewitnesses, eggplant37, described the event:

"Well, like a wolf at a corpse, Judge Chabot has eviscerated SCO's case against Daimler."

And Blake said:

"'We're satisfied that DaimlerChrysler did finally certify their compliance with the software agreement, but we are still interested in gaining some information on why they didn't certify within the allotted time,' Stowell said."

Or the next day:

"The biggest mistake that anyone can make with today's ruling is to assume that the thing that happened today with DaimlerChrysler will have some sort of impact on our AutoZone or Novell or IBM cases."

What PR can do to a guy. Anyway, he informs us that the new Change in Control Agreement -- whoever thought up that title was a poet, although, endless editor that I am, I like to call it the Losing Control Agreement instead -- is not triggered by the change at Canopy.

Ms. DiDio is less sure what it all means:

"'Truthfully, no one knows what the coup at Canopy augurs,' DiDio said. 'What is clear to me, is that Ray Noorda's hand-picked longtime associates Ralph Yarrow and Darcy Mott are out at Canopy and presumably off SCO's board—or at least neutralized in those positions—meaning that the old familial ties forged at Novell have been cut.'"

She can't resist, however, holding out some hope, that given SCO's dismal financials, perhaps SCO will be pressured to settle, "if," she says, "IBM is willing to deal." Ah, yes, if. If, indeed. The big if.

I can see it now. David Boies, white flag waving, as he enters IBM's headquarters, checking his pistols at the door in a symbolic gesture of complete surrender, and then walking into the conference room, his hands up, saying, "Please don't shoot" ...

And finally, the words that will make the image complete, from analyst Stacey Quandt, senior business analyst with the Robert Frances Group:

"If SCO is unsuccessful in its efforts to sue IBM and Novell, the share price of SCO stock will fall further and then a shareholder lawsuit becomes a strong possibility," Quandt said.

Visions of sugar plums, eh? What a concept.


  


Blake Stowell and Laura DiDio on the Canopy Shakeup | 219 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Blake Stowell and Laura DiDio on the Canopy Shakeup
Authored by: entre on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 09:13 AM EST
Corrections Here Please

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT thread
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 09:19 AM EST

[ Reply to This | # ]

Blake Stowell and Laura DiDio on the Canopy Shakeup
Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST

I noticed last night that our old friend,
Enderle, was quoted on CNN; but just now
I couldn't re-locate the quote. I thought
it would complete the "set."

But in my pre-Christmas mood, I find it
had to be ill-mannered where Stowell and
DiDio are concerned. Surely they must be
wondering whence the sugarplums will come
when January is upon us.

For the rest of us, things become clearer
each day.

Best Holiday Wishes to all Groklaw-ers and
a very special virtual gift to PJ, MathFox,
and each of the folks who have made this site
so vital.

---
Peter H. Salus

[ Reply to This | # ]

The fat lady has yet to sing...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 09:36 AM EST
This ain't over yet. You never know, SCO may persuade a court that IBM may have copied Monterey code and put it on AIX for PowerPC innapropriately (or whatever) - stranger things have happened, after all. Although this will not effect the legal status of Linux at all, it will give SCO some credibility and cash to carry on making a nuisance of themselves.

We cannot be complacent or self-congratulatory yet. We still need to be on our guard. It is worth a lot of money to some powerful people to see Linux disgraced and the Open Source model (in business) destroyed.

Web Sig: Eddy Currents

PS - If I do not post again in the next couple of days, Merry Christmas PJ, Merry Christmas all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shareholder suits - do not bet on it
Authored by: skidrash on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 09:40 AM EST
The incentive just is not there for lawyers to beat the bushes looking for
clients on whose behalf to sue SCOG.

There will be no money left in SCOG soon.

Unless there is a rich shareholder who wants to shovel money at lawyers to
assuage the rich shareholder's anger.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Blake Stowell and Laura DiDio on the Canopy Shakeup
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 09:55 AM EST
The owners of Canopy seem to have expressed some profound unhappiness with the
top management of Canopy's way of doing things: I take it that Ralph Yarro was
one of the prime movers behind Ransom Love's ouster and Darl the Snarl's hiring,
and that Darl the Snarl's strategic approach was reviewed and signed off on by
Ralph Yarro's general counsel. Given SCOG's precarious and deteriorating legal
and financial positions, I believe that these changes are coming too late to
save SCOG from a one-way trip to the shadowlands - and these changes are by
themselves merely a tentative, timid first step to saving the rest of Canopy
from being sucked into the whirlwind of SCOG's debacle.

The owners of Canopy have made it clear that the next 30 days are the days where
each individidual within Canopy's entire management will have to justify his or
her continued employment at Canopy. If Darl the Snarl is reporting to Canopy,
then he will be reporting to an audience whose composition has changed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rememberances of the SCOXvDCX hearing
Authored by: eggplant37 on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 10:09 AM EST
Really, when I wrote that, I was terribly impressed with Judge Chabot's quick
style. She plowed through every issue before her with such zeal that I've never
seen before. When she got to DCC's case, she listened while each side presented
their cases, asked a couple of cursory questions, but I could tell, she had her
mind made up about this case before walking in the courtroom.

Then she read the order, verbatim. As she ticked off her findings about each of
the claims, it was like watching Annie Oakley at a shooting range, knocking off
beer bottles with rapid-fire shots. I was kind of surprised about the finding
on the timeliness claim, but not like I was when I learned that SCOX would
continue pushing that claim. The sheer madness that seems to lie behind this
whole "let's sue everyone and their brother" approach has me just
flabbergasted.

At some point, it has to become apparent to someone on the inside that this
really is a losing proposition. They've alienated nearly the entire marketplace
they wish to gain customers from -- that is the bullet that will kill them. I
posed on Slashdot that SCO was busy shooting themselves, first in the foot when
filing the entire suit, then in the knees with this last quarterlies, and what's
next? The head? The next shot will be slow to come but when it hits, I'm
afraid there will be gray matter on the wall behind them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Blake Stowell and Laura DiDio on the Canopy Shakeup
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 10:39 AM EST
"She can't resist, however, holding out some hope, that given SCO's dismal
financials, perhaps SCO will be pressured to settle, "if," she says,
"IBM is willing to deal." Ah, yes, if. If, indeed. The big if."

I am extremely flexible and I am always willing to talk deals with a smile with
terrorists: until enough time has passed and they are tired, hungry and
disoriented and the assault troops are in position, that is.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wishful thinking...
Authored by: Asynchronous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 10:47 AM EST
Being the time of year when you pause and take stock of the things around you... I paused and read into DiDio's comment.
'Truthfully, no one knows what the coup at Canopy augurs'
flashed through my mind as
'Truthfully, no one knows when the group at Canopy will auger'

I smiled...

Thank you Laura for the nice play on words.

(Note: "Auger" is a colloquialism for driving the plane straight into the ground. )

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Correction - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 01:25 PM EST
    • Correction - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 02:47 PM EST
    • defination : - Authored by: LocoYokel on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 03:36 PM EST
  • Auger In... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 01:31 PM EST
  • Wishful thinking... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 25 2004 @ 09:12 PM EST
Blake Stowell and Laura DiDio on the Canopy Shakeup
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 10:50 AM EST
As I understood her to tell me: Microsoft is telling other countries that if they want their economies to make money developing software, they need to be using non-open source.

Pure FUD.

My question (revealing my ignorance) does open source diminish the revenue that companies and countries can make programming, turning us all into service and support organizations, as she implied?

And what is wrong with making a living doing service and support? Nothing.

Ask yourself this: Will my customers be willing to pay slightly more for a good supportable product with less headaches in return for not having to pay the MS Tax?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Merry Christmas PJ...
Authored by: Acrow Nimh on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 10:54 AM EST
And a heartfelt thanks for all the Education/Information that your site has
given all the Groklawyers this year. Please, please, please catch up on your
sleep in the next few days. 'Nuff said...

---
Supporting Open Sauce since 1947 ;¬)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Merry Christmas PJ
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 11:05 AM EST


Thank you for all the fantastic work, and an educational year.

And a Merry Christmas to all of the Groklawyers - and a wish that next year will
be a productive as this one was.



---
Wayne

telnet hatter.twgs.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Official "The SCO Group" Positions - Seventy-one days without an official post
Authored by: AllParadox on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 11:13 AM EST
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".

Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.

This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.

PJ says you must be on your very best behavior.

If you want to comment on this thread, please post under "OT"


---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney

[ Reply to This | # ]

Merry X-Mas, Happy New Year
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 11:18 AM EST
This was a great Year.
Let's hope that next year we'll be able to better understand what really
happened this year.

[ Reply to This | # ]

    Brent Christensen?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 11:19 AM EST

    Maureen O'Gara is reporting that 3 Canopy executives have been fired.

    "Canopy CEO Ralph Yarro, CFO Darcy Mott and chief counsel Brent Christenson [sic] were reportedly barred from returning to Canopy's offices."

    Linux Business Week

    Every other news source is reporting only 2 people being fired at Canopy. Can anyone confirm the Maureen O'Gara report that Brent Christensen has been fired?

    Brent Christensen

    --------------------
    Steve Stites

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    If you were Darl would you be worried about Mr Mustard?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 11:40 AM EST
    Okay there's been some speculation that Mustard replaced Yarro because of the
    SCO situation

    let's consider some alternative possibilities

    SCENARIO #1: MUSTARD BROUGHT IN BECAUSE OF SCO

    Conclusion: Seems unlikely to be good for Darl


    SCENARIO #2: MUSTARD *NOT* BROUGHT IN BECAUSE OF SCO, BUT BECAUSE OF SOMETHING
    ELSE

    A possible sequence of events:

    A. Mr Mustard arrives at Canopy

    B. Mr Mustard reviews the Canopy portfolio

    C. Mr Mustard notices Canopy have a decent hunk of change invested in this thing
    called SCO (he might also notice the IBM subpoena on Canopy)

    D. Mr Mustard starts looking at SCO. He might even get a 2nd opinion on the
    legal case. What else would he see?

    - The balance sheet, inc. losses
    - Declining revenue (Unixware bucket not looking good)
    - The loss of the case against DC (the bucket for shaking down UNIX licensees is
    looking empty)
    - Pending PSJ motions in IBM (the bucket for IBM lawsuit money looks like it be
    empty soon)
    - Legend running late and being pushed back
    - Darl's $1.06m compensation package for achieving the above, and Sontag's $499K
    compensation package for achieving the above

    I leave to the reader what conclusions he might draw





    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Blake Stowell and Laura DiDio on the Canopy Shakeup
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 03:26 PM EST
    "'We're satisfied that DaimlerChrysler did finally certify their compliance with the software agreement, but we are still interested in gaining some information on why they didn't certify within the allotted time,' Is it accurate to say that SCO did not produce the required code last Janruary, last April, etc. when they were ordered by the court to?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Proposed settlement
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 04:32 PM EST
    IBM really ought to make a reasonable settlement offer:
    For $1, we will buy SCO
    We'll give you $50 more if you yank the chair out from under Darl to deliver it to us, and $50 on top of that if your security people throw him out the front door.

    Wouldn't that be a reasonable settlement?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Merry Christmas Folks!
    Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 04:39 PM EST
    Warmest yuletide wishes to PJ and everyone else here.

    See you next year!

    ---
    Thanks again,

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Christmas OT thread...
    Authored by: subdude on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 08:18 PM EST
    Thank you PJ and all the unsung heros that work so hard to make Groklaw THE news
    blog for Linux F/OSS legal issues.

    After SCO will be Microsoft, after Microsft... well, we will see.

    A heart-felt Merry Christmas.

    'Dude

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Happy Holidays, PJ and All the Groklaw Contributors
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 24 2004 @ 08:51 PM EST
    I have been following Groklaw almost daily since before the move to ibiblio,
    sometimes with trepidation, sometimes with relief. I appreciate all the work
    that has gone into counteracting the media FUD of SCOX and MS. Thank you all.

    billwww (formerly addicted to life without Groklaw)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Season's greetings groklaw
    Authored by: cybervegan on Saturday, December 25 2004 @ 04:11 PM EST
    and it's snowing here in the North West of England :-) (it doesn't usually do
    that here).

    Ho, ho, ho!

    ...and thanks, PJ for another informative year's work!

    greetings from cybervegan

    ---
    Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
    public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Deep pockets go beyond SCOG coffers
    Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 26 2004 @ 02:00 PM EST
    Don't forget about SCOG's insurance companies. They likely have large liability policies protecting the directors and officers against personal lawsuits; most corporations provide those because qualified candidates demand them as a condition for signing on. These liability policies would be the likely target of any sharholder suit.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the insurance companies themselves had expressed a desire for change at the top of SCOG. Maintaining insurance coverage can motivate a board of directors to cut the puppet strings and take control.

    [ 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 )     		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
    Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
    News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
    Powered By GeekLog
    Created this page in 0.05 seconds