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
Chris Preimesberger - SCO Asked Fluff Questions During Conference Call
Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 07:04 PM EST

This is something I didn't see before. It's a report from IT Manager's Journal's Chris Preimesberger on the last SCO financial teleconference:

"Something I want to mention about this conference call: No hardball questions were asked. SCO Group undoubtedly selected only certain people it expected to ask fluff questions, and fluff questions they got. So we couldn't get to the bottom of these incongruencies. If I were a stockholder, I'd be very angry at this opacity.

"Did yours truly ask a question? I had several lined up:

  • How will the recent sacking of both the CEO and CFO of its parent company, Canopy Group, affect SCO's business strategy? Canopy is SCO Group's largest single stakeholder.
  • How can SCO Group look ahead with optimism, with only $7 million in the bank? It had $64 million in the bank a year ago.
  • How is SCO Group going to look for new business, especially with all its public relations problems? The Unix space is not exactly growing.

"However, I was not called upon during the 38-minute (only about 15 of those were for questions) conference. (Most calls of this kind last about an hour.) All callers are asked to provide their names, affiliations, and phone numbers upon registering, and when asked, I pressed 'Star-1' immediately to get into the queue to ask a question. But no dice."

To be fair, there were, in my opinion, some good questions asked, but for sure it seemed odd that no one asked about the Canopy Group shakeup at all, while some were asking instead questions that SCO must have loved being asked, so they could present their side of things, like how important did they think discovery is to this case, or questions the answers to which were already known, like what the amended complaint they are asking to submit is about.

I thought that only a few reporters had bothered to show up, but evidently that isn't the case. Were any other reporters in attendance who were unable to ask a question?

It seemed odd enough when I assumed there weren't any other reporters in the queue; now that I know at least one reporter was waiting in vain, it seems even more peculiar that Tom Eisenberg had time to ask historical question after question that he could have read up on prior to the call and to search for a sheet with the numbers on it that went out with the press release while we all waited.

Now, I don't fault anyone for asking questions, and it's a valid way to learn, and it could all have been completely innocent. But why didn't the SCO folks at least tell Eisenberg to go get his paperwork in order, if not the due diligence, while they let Preimesberger ask at least one question and then they'd swing back by? Or extend the 15-minute question and answer session by 5 minutes to let everyone ask their questions? Please don't tell me that they don't know how to interact with the media. They surely know how important it is to a reporter to be able to ask his own questions. Instead, they let Eisenberg go on and on and then the questions were simply cut off at 15 minutes, with at least one reporter waiting to ask questions he wasn't allowed to ask.

One SCOX Yahoo poster, mersenne137, says he called Eisenberg, who reportedly said he is a friend of Chuck Royce. You remember Royce. Here's the subpoena [PDF] he got from IBM, indicating an interest on their part in any dealings he might have had with the Canopy Group. Five of the seven items on the list mention Canopy. Whether Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Royce are friends or not, the whole thing is starting to feel a little peculiar. I can also tell you that when I have called in to a SCO teleconference in the past and signaled I wished to ask a question, I was not called on either. Go figure.

Of course, being me, I thought at the time they just had too many other, more important callers. Now, with this new report, I take it as a sign that I must be doing something exactly right.


  


Chris Preimesberger - SCO Asked Fluff Questions During Conference Call | 135 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 07:11 PM EST
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: iceworm on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 07:12 PM EST
Post it here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this legal?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 07:18 PM EST
Can a public company screen the questions so it doesn't have to answer the ones
it doesn't like?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Linux Weekly News and questions
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 07:41 PM EST
They have never been called on for a question either. In the early days of the
lawsuit only the supportive reporters were called on. Now it seems most
reporters are locked out. Maybe that's because the tide of positive coverage
has receded and journalists are now acting like the sceptics they should be.

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's why Darl is so frustrated with Groklaw
Authored by: kawabago on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 08:01 PM EST
The truth is so much easier to tell and so much harder to hide!

---
constructive irrelevance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Official SCO replies here please
Authored by: Beyonder on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 08:45 PM 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.

PJ says you must be on your very best behavior.

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

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOG's secret license and a desparate attempt to buy it (repost)
Authored by: m_si_M on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 08:49 PM EST

This is a repost from 6th of January, but it fits with what I perceive as SCOG's dubious attempts to manipulate their stock price:

Today I tried (out of curiousity) to find a way to buy a SCO "Unix IP License" from www.sco.com. On http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html (notice the URL!!!) I found the following:

"The license is available immediately and can be purchased by credit card through our online store."

But there is no online store. So the next step was to click the "Buy now" button. It was linked to a 3 step guide. Step 1 included a link called "Please click here to review the EULA." Clicking the link brought up another page where I could read: "Please contact your SCO sales representative for a current copy of the software license."

My question to the legal eagles here on Groklaw: Is this (stock) fraud? Advertising -- in press releases and the FAQ (http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html - notice the URL again!) -- a "product" you can't buy?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A good question
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 08:49 PM EST
"How can SCO Group look ahead with optimism, with only $7 million in the
bank? It had $64 million in the bank a year ago"

A better question:

How will SCO pay Novell the money (95%) for SYSV license royalties from the 16
Million MS and SUN deal with only 7 million in the bank?

Is SCO-X already 9 million in debt?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Financial teleconference
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:13 PM EST
When reporting financial results, is a company required to answer questions at
all? If I understand correctly, this is not a shareholders' meeting. I believe
there are requirements about letting shareholders ask questions at a
shareholders meeting. (In past, environmentalists have bought shares in
companies so they could ask embarassing questions.) In this case though isn't
it just a public relations exercise? (Or, as is often the case, have I missed
something?) Sadly, I think the SEC isn't going to be interested in this one
unless we can catch SCO in an actual serious untruth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Financial teleconference - Authored by: brian on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:54 PM EST
    • SEC - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 11:15 PM EST
      • SEC - Authored by: brian on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 11:25 PM EST
        • SEC - Authored by: Wol on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 04:16 AM EST
Suggested research project
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:13 PM EST
One swallow does not a summer make, though it may hint at one

My suggestion is that we go back over all conference calls since 6 March 2003
(or better yet since Darl's inauguration at SCO) and make a list of the
questioners, number of questions asked by each questioner during each call and
across all calls, and the affiliation of the questioner if any with
SCO/Royce/Canopy.

I would also like to suggest the May-ish 2003 call (calls?) may be a good place
to start.

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Boys Club
Authored by: senectus on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:17 PM EST
Surely your not surprised?
It's becoming obvious to me just as an external casual observer that SCO is
developing a "Boys Club" type feel to it.

This sort of thing is so easy to setup when the "Boys" rule the roost,
sitting around buying drinks for each other and making "suggestions"
as to what would make the meets so much easier to slid though so they can go
back to buying drinks for each other...

Thats the impression I get from them anyhow..

[ Reply to This | # ]

In defense of SCO (not much)
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:35 PM EST
I feel sick, but here goes nothing.

$44m cash burn in 12 months, $7m in the bank ---> would seem to imply they
have 7/44 ~ under 2 months left before they run out of cash....


However, it's not quite as bad as that:

$44m cash burn includes $31m of capped legal fees

So, assuming they don't incur additional legal fees, their non-legal cash-fee
burn is $13m in 12 months ---> 6-7 months left before they run out of
cash...


[ Reply to This | # ]

Question omitted in conference call
Authored by: fudisbad on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 10:29 PM EST
Please explain the recent uptick in SCOX stock during the past month. And why
has it stayed above $4? Note that most of the uptick occurred in the last 10
minutes of trade each day (we're talking up 20c in that time - consistently).
Here's some historic prices.

Date Price Change
----------------------
11-02 $2.85 -$0.07
11-03 $3.05 $0.20
11-04 $3.50 $0.45
11-05 $3.66 $0.16
11-08 $3.77 $0.11
11-09 $3.42 -$0.35
11-10 $3.40 -$0.02
11-11 $3.24 -$0.16
11-12 $3.45 $0.21
11-15 $3.47 $0.02
11-16 $3.45 -$0.02
11-17 $3.61 $0.16
11-18 $3.55 -$0.06
11-19 $3.50 -$0.05
11-22 $3.47 -$0.03
11-23 $3.66 $0.19
11-24 $3.69 $0.03
11-25 $3.69 $0.00
11-26 $3.84 $0.15
11-29 $4.00 $0.16
11-30 $3.98 -$0.02
12-01 $4.25 $0.27
12-02 $4.60 $0.35
12-03 $4.62 $0.02
12-06 $4.75 $0.13
12-07 $4.64 -$0.11
12-08 $4.80 $0.16
12-09 $4.99 $0.19

Manipulation? Short squeeze?

---
FUD is not the answer.
FUD is the question.
The truth is the answer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did anybody else notice ...
Authored by: rao on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 11:41 PM EST

When I was listening to the conference call live, I remember thinking that there must not be any reporters covering the "Darl Show" anymore. There was an almost "awkward silence" after the second or third caller asked his questions. The operator came on again and started giving directions on how to ask a question. It was as if there were no people trying to ask questions.

Did anybody else notice this or was it just me?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don Marti, Linux Journal
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 11:55 PM EST
I'm still on SCO's press list, and I still *1 like a madman every call, but they
don't call on me.

I was just going to ask if they had anyone to replace Scott Lemon in the CTO job
and how much of this quarter's "SCOSource" revenue was EV1.

Don Marti
Linux Journal

[ Reply to This | # ]

Financial analysts
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 02:47 AM EST
Sometimes, corporations will only call on (known) financial analysts from Wall
Street / Wall Street publications during earnings calls. If they did call on
more
general interest publication, then that theory is out.

If I were a member of the press calling in, I wouldn't put "linux" in
the name
of the publication I'm working on. And I'd try to find some (reputable)
financial publication to freelance for, so I could use their name.

--former member of the press who has listened to financial calls.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Utah culture
Authored by: zroh on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 02:47 AM EST
Hoping this isn't a problem, just want to explain what
has probably happened.
Utahans are told not to question those with authority, if
you do something bad will happen to you. In other words,
I fear that you have been excommunicated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • ??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 11:52 AM EST
    • ??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 04:26 PM EST
Phone booth, two states over
Authored by: om1er on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 07:39 AM EST
PJ,

Did you precisely identify yourself, or did you actually call from a phone
booth, two states over, like you said you might (joke, joke)?


---
Keeping an eye on the bouncing ball.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perservarance furthers
Authored by: mersenne137 on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 10:37 AM EST
Tom Eisenberg is quite affable and willing to discuss his profession. He describes his ownership position as "de minimus", and seems genuinely disturbed over the attention due it. Mine was not the first call he has received. He seemed baffled by the intensity of opposition, and I tried to explain it several different ways: "They're programmers, to them it's binary, either SCOX is lying or it is not. End of story"

His stock-in-trade is knowing what the Street thinks of forthcoming business combinations, so he is hungry for information. I let him know that Groklaw reports in near-real-time, and he was grateful for the tip.

He called my attention to the SCOX price spike (Dec 27), "It ran to five, there's money moving there."

Our call kept circling back to the big funds, the possibility of a buy-out, or settlement from a defendant. "Those big funds can afford a half-million in research, they aren't making a mistake." He did know some of the big funds had average cost north of $11 a share, which given his puplic opacity on the Baystar PIPE, is an unusually complete financial perspective. He also appeared to know that Citadel and Chesapeake had bought in at a low price.

An earlier caller had used the oft-repeated characterization, "IBM will never settle." He was skeptical, but willing to accept the position's logic, vis-a-vis innoculating against future nuisance suits. "We should make a bet, and see who's right."

Eddie Lambert, owner of AutoZone, and a childhood friend of Jonathan Cohen got some play. [on my initiative, so hard to read the attachment he places on this aspect]

Eisenberg shares an office with another SCOX share holder, "Jay G. Goldman and Company." Goldman has an active trading position in SCOX. Jay G. Goldman is described as a long-short equity hedge fund. 13F forms show Goldman bought 15K shares of SCOX in Oct-Dec, 2003, added to 31K in March, 2004, down to 25K in June, and back up to 33K in September. The SCOX position is extremely small for typical Goldman investments, and unusually long lived.

Goldman has grown rapidly increasing from a total of $107MM undermanagement in 2003 to 233MM in the Sept 04 13F filing. Filings only start in 2003. Goldman's trading pattern is aggressive 198 of 205 issues show activity (140 sellouts/new buys) in the latest 13F.

Jay G. Goldman attended UPenn ('79). Classmates of his were Owen Brown and Donny Deutsch. Owen Brown now runs (sole employee?) Solaris Capital out of the Jay Goldman address. A joint venture aggreement between Goldman and Brown was effective 1/9/02.

Owen Brown is the name of the retired President and COO of Sun (Lawrence "Owen" Brown, Auburn '61) so the selection of the name "Solaris" is an unusual coincidence. The NYC Owen Brown reports trading "his own capital", could he be the scion of pere Owen Brown, though dates of graduation make this unlikely ?

Owen Brown's Solaris Fund appears to be oriented to commodity, gold & metals, and currency hedges. He gets predominate mention on the hedgejapan website: it can be surmised that the Solaris Fund is marketed to Japanese "Alternative Investment or AI" investors.

Solaris has a registration statement for "Spectra Fund LLC", and a trading arrangement with "AIG Trading Corp". Spectra was a hot, aggressive growth no load fund heavily used by market timers. Both "AIG Trading Group" and Spectra were implicated in the original Spitzer mutual fund market-timing indictments. a feature of the market timing plays were use of Japanese trading shifts. The original Spectra trader David Alger died in 9/11.

Jay G. Goldman has a website JGoldman.net which refuses to load, and has no report from NetCraft. An email address of Michael Rokicki is the only use google can find of this domain. [Roricki, 34, shows up running 8 minute miles in Cranford NJ 5K fun runs, and is suddenly seized by the urge to compete in the NYC and Marine Corps DC marathons]

The Solariscapital.net website is operational. Solaris Capital original address was 211 Glenridge Ave. Montclair, NJ. This address (evidently several suites) has been various occupied by Starseed, a meditation center for Amazonian shamans, and Brandstreet LLC, an ad agency. A Jay G. Goldman is recorded in a PIPE investment with TiVo, Goldman's 13F forms also report a TiVo investment. The PIPE investment was in the name of Woodmant Investments LTD. which is a British Virgin Islands shell, which also is recorded with a controlling stake in P-Com, Inc.

Jay G. Goldman shows up repeated endorsing the several books of Ari Kiev. Kiev is a psychatrist who works as a Wall Street day-trading coach.

Donny Deutsch is a flamboyant ad executive. Jay Goldman gets an extended mention in the description of Deutsch's outrageous Las Vegas batchelor party.

Sources: www.hedgejapan.com/colum_list.asp?colum_category=3&lang=en

www.globalfundanalysis.com/default.php?page=/news.php&&id=5

[ Reply to This | # ]

How to get real questions asked during SCO conference
Authored by: k12linux on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 10:43 AM EST
  1. Buy your own domain name today
  2. Set up a dummy news site
  3. "Publish" all sorts of pro-SCO rubbish in every story
  4. Make sure your name and the email address you give for the call are on every page
  5. Call in
  6. Act surprised you are one of the first questions taken
  7. Ask the kind of questions that should have been asked this time.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Chris Preimesberger - SCO Asked Fluff Questions During Conference Call
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 11:46 AM EST
I called in to the same conference, early, and when the
time came pressed the question key. And again and
again, as time went on and I was not selected.
Two of my questions mirrored your first two, plus some
about stock sale patterns.
I never got the chance to ask the questions. I was
assured by both a supervisor managing the conference
call-in and Blake Stowell no one was specifically
targeted.
But reading your posting, I wonder. I didn't hear one
"hard" question that day from those chosen to ask.
Cheers,
Bob Mims
The Salt Lake Tribune

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: SCOG Conference Call
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 01:33 PM EST
It is probably irrelevant that the snow making machines on board of the SCOG's
Titanic are working full blast now that the SCOG's Titanic is within half of a
nautical mile of that iceberg. To worry about SCOG's financial position right
now is about as futile as plotting to be the next emperor of Rome in 410 CE,
even as the barbarians are pouring through the gates of the city and spearing
the residents like shish-kebab.

[ 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 )