|
|
| SCO Shareholder Meeting in April or May - Yarro Staying? |
 |
|
Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 10:49 AM EST
|
Now *this* is interesting. SCO's PR guy, Blake Stowell gives an interview to Computer Business Review Online about Canopy and its current position with regard to SCO and about Ralph Yarro, currently the chairman of the SCO board, in which Stowell "added" that Yarro's position will be up for renewal at the next annual shareholder meeting. Darcy Mott's too. PR people don't add details the interviewer didn't ask about without a reason, in my experience. Talk about floating a balloon. I'd say better not buy that second house until June. Stowell also says SCO hopes to file its delayed 10K shortly, hopefully before the delisting meeting on the 17th. And about Canopy and SCO, we learn this: "Stowell also confirmed that Canopy, formerly SCO's largest shareholder, is no longer financially connected to the company, which is best known these days for its breach of contract and copyright lawsuit against IBM.
"'I believe that is the case that there is no longer a financial relationship between Canopy and SCO,' he said, adding that the company nevertheless expected to continue to be based in Canopy-leased property.
"Yarro is now the biggest shareholder of SCO common stock, with 5.4 million shares or 31% of the company's 17.5 million available shares. 'We expect he'll continue to own those shares and we expect he'll continue in his role as chairman,' Stowell said. 'He's taking a long-term view of the value of the shares.'"
Maybe. Maybe not. I believe the eyes of the world will be watching his actions closely for an accurate assessment of his view of the value of the stock. Here's a handy place to keep on the watch. Take a look at the chart for today, on the right of the page.
Melanie Hollands has an article explaining restatements and what they mean and portend: A restatement does not always spell bad news. But more often than not, it means the company's numbers have headed south. One of the most significant impacts of a restatement is investors and the public begin to question the accuracy of past numbers and quality of management. Furthermore, when one piece of bad news is announced, its often the case that more bad news lies ahead.
It can also be useful to see whether a restatement has lead to a shakeup in management; it's particularly telling if a CEO or CFO is leaving the company, which usually indicates that most of the bad news has been revealed already. However, it can also mean a new, more compliant puppet has been put in place. And speaking of keeping your eyes on events, you may have noticed that SCO has been subtly changing its SCOsource web pages. Remember when you could buy the license online with a credit card? Try to click on the page currently and you get a 404, document not found. http://www.caldera.com/scosource/howtobuy.html is dead too. And if you try to search for "SCOsource" in their Knowledge Center, it finds zero documents. The FAQ is still there. It still says, "SCO has been showing examples of direct line-by-line copying of UNIX code into Linux to hundreds of industry analysts, reporters, customers, partners, and industry influencers since June of this year." I would change it too, after Judge Kimball said that SCO had not presented any credible evidence of copyright infringement. On what basis, then, did SCO sell those "Intellectual Property Licenses for Linux"? I can't help but wonder how EV1 feels now. By the way, you might be interested in knowing SCO's policy with regard to their web content: Copyright
© Copyright 1998-2004, The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. SCO documents available from the World Wide Web ("SCO Documents") are protected by the copyright laws of the United States and International Treaties.
Permission to copy, view and print SCO documents available from the World Wide Web is authorized provided that: -
it is used for non-commercial and informational purposes;
-
it is not modified; and
-
the above copyright notice and this permission notice is contained in each SCO Document.
Notwithstanding the above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any right or license under any copyright of SCO. Well. Fair use still exists, even with all the arrows sticking out of its behind, so I will dare to quote just a small segment. Now you know why I never, ever, use any legal documents from their site. Our policy has been to obtain all documents from the courthouse directly, even when it meant taking more time, and now you know that I didn't just fall off a turnip truck. I knew they'd assert, as they do, on this page, that they owned and/or controlled every dot on the page and would try to enforce it, if they felt like it, and I was pretty sure that when it came to Groklaw, they might feel like it: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
SCO actively and aggressively enforces its intellectual property rights to the fullest extent of the law. Indeedy. So they do. A lot of good it has done them. There is a lot to be said for good will. People often treat you better if they like you, and then they'll do what you wish out of good-heartedness. But after SCO's legal hissy fit, bullying the world about their alleged "rights", who likes them now?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 11:35 AM EST |
Am I the only one to notice the fact that over
150K shares of SCOXE have been traded in the
past two hours? Bizarre.
---
Peter H. Salus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 11:52 AM EST |
I'm a bit confused about the idea that Canopy used to be the largest
shareholder. That kind of implies that they aren't any more, which means they
sold their shares, and we're talking about millions of shares here. This would
be hard to sell without making a big splash. Anybody know what the situation is
here?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sprag on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 11:53 AM EST |
I've got no pity for "Head Surfer" Robert Marsh and EV1.net. They
didn't research a product, spent money on it and got bit in the butt. If they'd
done five minutes of research they'd have seen this as a sham from a mile away.
Every time I see their ad in Linux Journal all I can think of is how stupid
their investment was. Well, that and his ill-fitting suit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No Pity from inside EV1 either - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 12:17 PM EST
- NO PITY - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 12:37 PM EST
- NO PITY, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 12:46 PM EST
- EV1 a Microsoft PR program? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 01:44 PM EST
- No Pity for EV1 - Authored by: Upholder on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 02:20 PM EST
- No Pity for EV1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 02:58 PM EST
- No Pity for EV1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 04:50 PM EST
- No Pity for EV1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 05:49 PM EST
- No Pity for EV1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 06:48 PM EST
- EV1 Arrogant "Linux Journal" ads - Authored by: Dr.Dubious DDQ on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 06:21 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 11:54 AM EST |
| Remember when you could buy the license online with a credit card? Try to
click on the page currently and you get a 404, document not found.
http://www.caldera.com/scosource/howtobuy.html is dead too. And if you try to
search for "SCOsource" in their Knowledge Center, it finds zero
documents.
Darn it! I was wondering what I should do with my
$699 tax return! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: oo on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 11:55 AM EST |
Could this all be just a set-up? For Canopy to exit the SCO mess and protect it
from being chased in the future by IBM for example?
---
m.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 11:55 AM EST |
"But after SCO's legal hissy fit, bullying the world about their alleged
"rights", who likes them now?"
I do like SCOG - as a punching bag, as a martial arts dummy, as a target in the
firing range, as shark feed, as roadkill on life's highway, etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shareme on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 11:58 AM EST |
Does that mean that the settlement exchanged SCOX stock from Canpoy's hands to
other individuals involved in the settlement?
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 12:05 PM EST |
Please put off topic comments here.
Link example:
<a href="www.example.com">link</a>
Change "Post Mode" from plain text to html formatted. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jdg on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 12:09 PM EST |
Please put off topic comments here.
Link example:
<a href="www.example.com">link</a>
Change "Post Mode" from plain text to html formatted.
Now this will be visible to those not signed in.
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 12:10 PM EST |
SCO has also removed their page at [no link because it wouldn't work]
sco.com/ibmlawsuit
It was there as recently as March 8, according to the <a
href="http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:i-VYUHjwmEUJ:www.caldera.com/ibm
lawsuit/+ibmlawsuit&hl=en&lr=lang_en">Google cache</a>
retrieved at that date.
I pointed this out on Yahoo! last night, as well as the fact that the page was
still indexed by SCO's internal search tool. Others noted that the Novell case
page was similarly removed but still in the index.
This morning, the reference to the pages has been purged as well, down the
memory hole.
It does appear that SCO is, for whatever reason, trying to lower its profile
with respect to the IBM case. I can't imagine that it's going to do much good.
Thad Beier[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 12:16 PM EST |
What happens if SCO goes bankrupt before this lawsuit is over? It looks like
that's where we are headed. So what happens to the lawsuit then? Will it remain
unresolved, giving ammunition to FUD purveyors? This would be the worst thing to
happen to Linux. Any troll would be able to point at it and say "if SCO had
more money they would have won". How will we ever disspell the cloud of
uncertainty?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 12:35 PM EST |
AFAIR, the SCO press releases said something about $1M (?) worth of licenses - I
think it only tells us the quantity of licenses ($1M/$699?), not the actual
money paid. They could sell those licenses for $1 each.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gard on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 12:52 PM EST |
Hi,
Remember when you could buy the license online with a
credit card? Try to click on the page currently and you get a 404, document not
found. http://www.caldera.com/scosource/howtobuy.html is dead too.
If it is eventually declared that SCO was selling the
Brooklyn Bridge/swamp in 'Bama/alternate_metaphor, how many statutes would have
been violated? Especially considering these were solicited by mail, sold over
the Net, and paid for by credit card. Could knowledgeable folks list them for
each country?
gard
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 12:53 PM EST |
Sco can't hide from any of this regardless of what they remove. Hey SCO, you
missed some....
These are two of the many I have saved...
http://www.sco.com/scosource/ipprotection.html
"Many customers are concerned about using Linux since they have become
aware of the allegations that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of the
UNIX® operating system. These customers unknowingly received illegal copies of
SCO property and many are running critical business applications on
Linux."
Shall we not also forget the December 19th, 2003 *proof* that Linux has SCO
owned code???? "Why no your honor, this was NEVER about copyrights, wait,
which Judge are we talking to? Just a second your honor, we need to check our
notes."
http://www.caldera.com/scosource/abi_files_letter_20031219.pdf
"These facts support our position that the use of the Linux operating
system in a commercial setting violates our rights under the United States
Copyright Act, including the Digital Millennium copyright Act."
I realize this is all nostalgia, the point being is that I pulled up this info
cold, and in under 2 minutes. Given that fact that I'm an idiot compared to the
researches and shear volume of eyes peering into this, there is no way to hide
any of it. That ship has sailed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 12:56 PM EST |
I've followed small caps for a few years. I can tell you that, without a doubt,
if scoxe was a real company, with real investors, scox would have fallen back
under $1/share a long time ago.
Scoxe is about 80% controlled by a handful of scammers. Certainly less than ten
people essetially control the whole thing. And, you can be those people are
working together.
Consider, after scoxe failed to file their 10K, had top execs from their parent
company walked out, and got an "E" appended to their name; scoxe share
price went up - significantly up. Scoxe was $3.50 two months ago, and $2.76 two
months before that. today scoxe is at $4.10 and going up strongly, well in the
green. And where's this quarter's conference call?
I've seen better small caps tank 40% at the open on much less bad news.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 01:08 PM EST |
I don't know what, if any, pages there were prior to the Canopy-Yarro tussle,
but when now going to SCO's website and even doing a simple searches for the
word 'Canopy' or 'Yarro' only bring back a single page, which is a listing of of
the SCO executive board. I could be mistaken, but it seems like any connection
to Canopy has already been entirely excised.
---
Scott
-------------------------
LINUX - VISIBLY superior!
-------------------------
All rights reserved. My comments are for use on Groklaw only.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 01:36 PM EST |
I can't see that Yarro with 31% of the company will be much in danger of losing
his job as Chairman. It would take almost all of the other shareholders to band
together and try to oust him. I would expect that most shareholders who saw the
legal strategy as a loser have long since bailed out.
I do think Blake's comments are interesting. They may only be a prelude to
declaring an overwhelming stockholder vote for Yarro as a vindication of the
legal strategy. We might also see Darl elevated to Chairman, and Yarro stay on
as only a board member.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: frk3 on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 02:52 PM EST |
To be a fly on the wall of that meeting. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chris_bloke on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 02:53 PM EST |
Please put corrections here so PJ can find them easily.
I'll start
with an obvious one:
Now *this* in interesting.
should be:
Now *this* is
interesting.
- Chris [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 08:49 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 03:13 PM EST |
What are the possiblities that Yarro could change the whole SCO direction? What
would happen if the legal stuff was just closed out and SCO went back to the
UNIX business?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 06:30 PM EST |
This
* attorneys' fees and costs.
occurs twice under
"Relief it is asking for include:"
* money damages
* a permanent injunction requiring IBM to return or destroy all source code
and binary copies of the Software Products and/or prohibiting IBM from further
contributions of the protected Software Products into open source
* restitution in an amount measured by the benefits conferred upon IBM by
its ongoing improper use of the Software Products, including the full amount IBM
receives as a result of its ongoing sales of AIX, including software, services
and hardware
* attorneys fees and costs
* a permanent injunction to prohibit IBM from further contributions of the
protected Software Products into open source
* punitive damages
* attorneys' fees and costs.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dark on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 08:23 PM EST |
I'd say don't hold your breath about that shareholder meeting. TSG has trouble
with dates even when they're being specific. A two-month span is pretty vague so
I'm guessing August :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 09:18 PM EST |
Is this standard pricing in the USA.
I've always thought the 30,000,000 million price tag, to take on this case was
rather expensive. "Boise etc."
Nobody has mentioned the extravagant price of this lawsuit.
Is it really worth that much money. If so don't you think that US Lawyers are
rather pricey.
Sorry It's always bothered me. If IP and Patent claims cost this much, then I
think the law and the system are broken (think innocent here).
Gunillablue [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kb8rln on Wednesday, March 16 2005 @ 01:46 AM EST |
Here is something the SCO forgot at
http://ir.so.com
---
Director Of Infrastructure Technology (DOIT)
Really this is my Title so I not a Lawyer.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
