decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Morgan Keegan Letter Re Sun, MS, and SCOsource
Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 01:37 AM EDT

Hey, remember how SCO, in its Answer to Novell's Counterclaims, denied that Sun's and Microsoft's agreements with SCO were SCOsource licenses?
50. Admits that SCO, through its SCOsource division, entered into agreements related to UNIX and Unixware with Sun Microsystems, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation (in that order) and that the Microsoft agreement covered UNIX compatibility products; but denies each and every other allegation of 50, including the allegation that the Sun and Microsoft agreements were part of the SCOsource licensing program.

Well, Onecle has put up, as part of its sample forms section, the February 13, 2003 SCO-Morgan Keegan letter of engagement that we already had obtained as an exhibit attached to a SCO SEC filing. But seeing it fresh on Onecle, I noticed something. Look at this, how Morgan Keegan refers to the then-potential Sun and Microsoft agreements in that letter:

2. SCO and Morgan Keegan agree that, in the event Sun Microsystems and/or Microsoft enters into a substantial SCOsource licensing arrangement with SCO during the term of the engagement, that such an event would fall under provision 1(b) of our Engagement Letter. As such, the aggregate amounts paid under the license agreements would be subject to the Contingent Placement Fee, calculated as six (6) percent for a license with Sun and one (1) percent for a license with Microsoft.

So, there you go, a little more of SCO's revisionist history just went poof.


Morgan Keegan Letter Re Sun, MS, and SCOsource | 280 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off-topic discussion
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 02:06 AM EDT
Reply to this post for all off topic discussions

Collaborative efforts synergise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: wood gnome on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 02:17 AM EDT
If needed

IANAL, I'm an alien from Europe

[ Reply to This | # ]

It doesn't add up
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 02:26 AM EDT
If the SCOSource licenses are within the agreement with Novell, whereby SCO
only receives 5% of the license fee, how can SCO sign an agreement with Morgan
Keegan whereby Morgan Keegan receives 6% of the license fee if sold to Sun?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOSource licensing
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 02:33 AM EDT
From a Jan. 22, 2003 press release:

SCO Establishes SCOsource to License Unix Intellectual Property
SCO's patents, copyrights and core technology date back to 1969 when Bell Laboratories created the original UNIX source code. SCOsource will manage the licensing of this software technology to customers and vendors.

"SCO is the developer and owner of SCO UnixWare and SCO OpenServer, both based on UNIX System V technology," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group. "SCO owns much of the core UNIX intellectual property, and has full rights to license this technology and enforce the associated patents and copyrights. SCO is frequently approached by software and hardware vendors and customers who want to gain access to key pieces of UNIX technology. SCOsource will expand our licensing activities, offering partners and customers new ways to take advantage of these technologies."

From a May 14, 2003 press release:

The SCO Group Signs Second SCOsource License Agreement;...
"[..] Of the $21.0 million in anticipated second-quarter revenue, approximately $12.8 million is expected to come from the sale of its operating system platform products, and $8.2 million is expected to come from its SCOsource licensing initiative."

$8.2 million? From SCOSource initiative? I can only think of two companies that fit that bill. My goodness, how are they ever going to explain that to Judge Kimball?

Caught in their own deceptions...... again!

London bridge is....

Collaborative efforts synergise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Revising history
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 03:12 AM EDT
Dear Ms Jones,

We would request that you remove any and all references to the SCO Group
revising history on

That has not happened in the past. Nor will not happen in the future.
Furthermore, no one at the SCO Group, nor on the behalf of the SCO group, has
ever nor will ever attempt spread mis-truths by intent or omission.

The unexplainable act of SCO representatives appearing to state apparently
conflicting facts to different parties at different times has had a number of
Rocket Scientists at MIT struggling for the last several months.

They have finally come up with a theory: The Enderle horizon--
The Enderle horizon is the spin field of a journalist where the logic is so bent
that facts cannot escape it.

We, the Rocket Scientists at MIT have determined that at a number of public
events and in a number of public filing, the missing or erroneous facts have,
unknown the the SCO representatives speaking or writing them, crossed the
Enderle Horizon.

We, the Rocket Scientists at MIT are seeking to retrieve the above state facts.

In addition, were are recommending that any and all legal actions that the SCO
Group is involved in be postponed until such time as we can retrieve the above
state facts

Rocket scientists at MIT for SCO

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm obviously missing something
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 08:17 AM EDT
"in the event Sun Microsystems and/or Microsoft enters into a substantial
SCOsource licensing arrangement"

Isn't that just another reason to deny that the agreements are SCOsource
agreements? It doesn't actually prove that the agreements are one thing or

If I had a sig, it would probably be "What am I missing."

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK, so now the question is
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 10:05 AM EDT
Well, this just shows that SCO was aware that Sun and MS *may* enter into an
"SCOsource licensing arrangment."

Now I think the real questions is, Did SCO pay Morgan Keegan the percentages
outlined in the agreement?

If they answer is yes, they are more than dead in the water. If the answer is
no, they are still swimming (but still gasping for breath).

How can we find out if they paid these amounts? Or do we know that by some
other way like SEC filings, etc.?

[ Reply to This | # ]

That reminds me of a fun insult..
Authored by: cheros on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 01:32 PM EDT
.. "he's so dense, light bends around him"

Ah, teh delights of science ;-)

= Ch =

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is not important if the licenses were into the SCOsource schema
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 01:34 PM EDT

All that matters is if the material that was licensed contained any of the
assets transfered from oldSCO. It does not matter if they have called it
SCOsource or any other name.

I do not understand why everybody is trying to prove that they were into the
SCOsource schema. Is absolutely irrelevant.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder why nobody's discussed this...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 08:25 PM EDT
This (the link above in case I mess up)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Evidentiary Value of a Wart
Authored by: AllParadox on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 11:42 PM EDT
When I was practicing law and trying trials, I kept an eye out for

Real people have imperfections. We have scars and wrinkles and warts. Most of
us don't even have ears at exactly the same level. Airbrushed models in
Playboy, or in perfume ads in women's magazines, have no visible imperfections.

"Warts" were one of my best indicators for lies. Several times during
a proceeding, and even with my own clients, I would stop and review. I tried to
pick out the flaws, inconsistencies, downright wrong statements that came out
with the story.

I once asked a lady cop on the witness stand if she ever made a mistake. She
said she made a lot of mistakes, often more than one a day. That was as good as
it was going to get for my client. I quit right then.

So here we have written proof (a document prepared by "The SCO Group"
no less) that prior to the MS and Sun agreements, "The SCO Group" was
clearly anticipating:
1. licensing UnixSysV related code, and
2. not sending the entire fee back to Novell.

This flaw is something not provided, or perhaps not even known to the Novell
attorneys until this article posted.

This document and reference carries a persuasive weight all out of proportion to
the ordinary tone of the words, whether the finder of fact is a judge or a jury.
It only takes a few pieces of evidence like this to make an unstoppable case.

"The SCO Group" might not get past Novell's preliminary injunction
after all.

PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.

AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.

[ 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 )