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
New Filings: BK and AutoZone
Wednesday, January 07 2009 @ 09:45 PM EST

Here are the latest filings in the SCO bankruptcy and in AutoZone.

First, the SCO bankruptcy filings:

01/06/2009 650 Monthly Application for Compensation for Services and Reimbursement of Expenses, as Accountants to the Debtors for the Period from December 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 Filed by Tanner LC. Objections due by 1/26/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/06/2009)

01/06/2009 651 Quarterly Application for Compensation for Services and Reimbursement of Expenses, as Accountants to the Debtors in Possession for the Period from October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 Filed by Tanner LC. Hearing scheduled for 1/29/2009 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 1/22/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Exhibit B # 4 Exhibit C # 5 Certificate of Service and Service List - Fee Application # 6 Certificate of Service and Service List - Notice Only) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/06/2009)

01/06/2009 652 Quarterly Application for Compensation (Fourth) and Reimbursement of Expenses Sought in the Monthly Fee Applications for the Period from August 1, 2008 through November 30, 2008 Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. Hearing scheduled for 1/29/2009 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 1/22/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Exhibit B # 4 Exhibit C # 5 Certificate of Service and Service List - Fee Application # 6 Certificate of Service and Service List - Notice Only) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/06/2009)

01/06/2009 653 Certificate of No Objection (No Order Required) Regarding Thirteenth Monthly Application of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, as Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession, for the Period From September 1, 2008 Through September 30, 2008 (related document(s) 632 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 01/06/2009)

01/08/2009 654 Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization /Debtors' Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization Filed by The SCO Group, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/08/2009 655 Disclosure Statement in Connection with Debtors' Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization (related document(s) 654 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit 1 # 3 Exhibit 2 # 4 Exhibit 3 # 5 Exhibit 4 # 6 Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

01/08/2009 656 Notice of Hearing on Approval of Disclosure Statement in Connection with Debtors' Joint Plan of Reorganization (related document(s) 655 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 2/25/2009 at 11:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 2/18/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service and Service List) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

And there is a new filing on the SCO v. Autozone docket as well, which we have as text:

01/06/2009 88 ORDER - Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 1/16/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge George W Foley, Jr on 1/6/08. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AXM) (Entered: 01/06/2009)

-- The Groklaw team

*******************************************

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

AUTOZONE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:04-cv-00237-RCJ-GWF

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the parties' failure to file a proposed Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. The Complaint (#1) in this matter was filed March 3, 2004. This matter has been stayed by order of the Court since August 6, 2004 (#35). The Court conducted a status conference on September 22, 2008. The Court ordered the stay in this case would expire on December 31, 2008, at which time the parties would be required to proceed with the prosecution of this case. It was further ordered that a proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order would be submitted upon expiration of the stay. To date, the parties have not complied. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file a stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order not later than January 16, 2009 in compliance with the provisions of LR 26-1 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

DATED this 6th day of January, 2009.

_______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge


  


New Filings: BK and AutoZone | 402 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
New Filings: BK and AutoZone
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 07:52 PM EST
One wonders why the stay due to the Bankruptcy doesn't apply here??

Inquiring minds would like to know?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic posts here
Authored by: bbaston on Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 07:53 PM EST
PJ, hopefully the money for grabbing old filings etc is pouring in!

---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold

[ Reply to This | # ]

What happens if no one file a plan in Auto Zone?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 08:03 PM EST

So, no one seems eager to move ahead with discovery in Auto Zone. What happens
next week if the court doesn't get a plan? Dismissal, with prejudice?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reorganized SCO - The Money
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 08:30 PM EST
I don't really understand the plan of re-organisation. Where are the numbers?

Reorganized SCO claims that it will sell its mobility assets and Openserver
business. For how much?

Also, it will generate revenue going forward through sales of a modernized UNIX
OS and a "true up licensing scheme". What on earth does that mean?
Again, how much money do they think they're going to get from this and on what
basis do they think this is enough to pay their debts? I thought their great
white hope for the future WAS their mobile assets, but they're selling those for
upfront cash!

They also say that if they don't have enough money to pay, then the key people
in Reorganized SCO will get a 10% paycut. Considering the fact that Darl will be
paid a base salary of $280k (not sure about the amount right now), he will still
be paid in excess of $200k even if he fails miserably in meeting Reorganized
SCO's debt obligations. Does this sound fair to IBM/Novell?

Presumably IBM/Novell would be by far the biggest creditors in terms of amount?
If so, how does the voting go, by majority in terms of creditors or in terms of
value (in Australia, I believe it must be by majority in terms of both number of
creditors entitled to vote and by value)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 09:14 PM EST
Mistakes too.

---
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those
who don't.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reorganization - Rounding Redefinition
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 11:24 PM EST

Is it really worth the few cents they will save by their creative redefinition of how to round to the nearest whole cent?

Or more sadly, is this how they think rounding normally works?

5.8 Fractional Cents. When any payment of a fraction of a cent would otherwise be called for, the actual payment shall reflect a rounding of such fraction to the nearest whole cent (rounding down in the case of $.50 or less and rounding up in the case of more than $.50).

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Cramdown: SCO proposes to Pay NOVL, IBM and RHT with Stock Certs
Authored by: stats_for_all on Friday, January 09 2009 @ 12:31 AM EST
Class 4 are the Claims of Novell, IBM, AZO and Redhat

SCO proposes these terms:

2). if the Allowed Claim (i.e. the court judgements) exceeds the amount that Reorganized SCO can pay in full with interest over a period of 5 years following the date the Claim is Allowed, [then] Reorganized SCO will Cancel its existing shares and issue new shares which will be interpled to the Bankruptcy Court for the benefit of those holders of Allowed Class 4 Claims.

This appears to be the central trick that SCO is playing, it proposes to pay Novell's judgment, and the coming IBM, RHT, SUSE penalties in.....wait for it....SCO stock certificates. It is also getting the court to give it a five year grace period in that promise (subject to annual partial payments).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let's get this plan approved -- then resume IBM and Red Hat
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2009 @ 02:40 AM EST

Finally, a plan we can live with. Get it done and get SCO out of Chapter 11.
Then we can move on to the IBM and Red Hat cases (assuming no one wants to do
discovery in Auto Zone and that gets dismissed).

Yee ha!

[ Reply to This | # ]

"True up" - a translation
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Friday, January 09 2009 @ 06:59 AM EST
Shar and beggarrah. Oy swear it hworn't tha Guinness. As oy was readin' the
reeharganasayshun plan, oy hwas feelin a little queasy, but hwen oy got to tha
bit about folks payin' to "make it laygal", that's hwen oy "true
up"

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about the Novell license collection business?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2009 @ 01:57 PM EST
SCO is still in the business of collecting Novell's royalties from the original
SVRx licensees, passsing it on to Novell, and collecting 5% for themselves as an
administrative fee. They have continued to do this even through the bankruptcy.
I believe that they are still collecting 2 to 4 million dollars worth of
Novell's money per quarter, which should work out to somewhere in the 10 million
dollars per year range, and 5 percent of 10 million dollars is about a half a
million dollars per year.

Who ends up with that part of SCO's business? Will it go with the openServer
and/or Mobility business to some new buyer, or will it stay with SCO as part of
the "new modern UNIX" business?

If they don't want to collect Novell's money any more, I think I'll make thme
them an offer to purchase that part of SCO's business for $1. I could certainly
use an extra half million dollars per year.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • But shrinking all the while - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2009 @ 02:12 PM EST
    • Wrong licensees - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2009 @ 02:31 PM EST
      • Hmmmm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2009 @ 05:24 PM EST
Unbelievable...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2009 @ 02:25 PM EST
In the Disclosure Statement, SCO is still claiming that they believe that they own the copyrights that Judge Kimball has already ruled stayed with Novell when the APA was executed. They also say that they believe that they control any derivative works. Note the sections that I emphasized with bold below:
SCO Group acquired certain rights relating to the UNIX (including UnixWare) source code and derivative works and other intellectual property rights when it purchased substantially all of the assets and operations of the server and professional services groups of the Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. in MAy 2001. The Santa Cruz Operation had previously acquired its rights from Novell, Inc. ("Novell") in 1995. Novell had acquired its rights from UNIX System Laboratories, a subsidiary of AT&T. Through this process, SCO Group believes that it acquired all UNIX source code, source code license agreements with thousands of UNIX vendors, certain UNIX intellectual property and other ownership rights, all claims for violations of the above mentioned UNIX licenses and copyrights and other claims, and control over UNIX derivative works.
I searched, and they do not mention any copyrights in the section above that statement, so I guess they could argue that they didn't lie because there were no "above mentioned copyrights" for them to own the claims for.

Hopefully someone will point these lies out to the bankruptcy court and the creditors who are going to vote for or against this plan.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Disclosure squishiness
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2009 @ 05:44 PM EST
I would NOT buy a car from whoever wrote that! It is carefully worded to not
say a thing while delivering an impression of content.

Their go forward business plan (page 22) is laughable at best. Who would
believe a company that says their best chance going forward is to get rid of the
only money maker they've had and focus on the very strategy that got them into
BK in the first place?

And there's some parts that directly contradict their past statement, filings
and practices.
1. You really gotta wonder who would be stupid enough to buy a "paid in
full" license from a company that tried to revoke an
"irrevocable" license from IBM.

2. "True-up" licensing they define as being a sort of catch-up for
companies who use/migrated to SCO but 'inadvertently' forgot to pay their
license fees. Yet on page 42, they project true-up revenue going forward as
increasing every year to over $15m by 2013. Clearly, this is not catch-up.
It's the same old 'SCO IP in Linux' extortion scam with a shiney new name.

3. Page 25 - "SCO has not been active in its licensing division for a
number of years..." Whoa... what about their arguments against Novell
about past practice, and consistent action and enforcement in the years since
the APA, etc? They contradict a whole slew of their own witnesses with that
sentence.

But my favorite line in the whole thing... regarding the appeal: "SCO has
competent expert opinions..." At least they acknowledge that it is just
opinion... had they said "hearsay" they'd be spot on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here....
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2009 @ 06:38 PM EST
Please, quote the article's title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Filings: BK and AutoZone
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2009 @ 05:52 AM EST
I think many of us spectators would prefer an orderly transition into Chapter
7.

Who votes on the reorganisation plan, and are they likely to prefer Chapter 7
for SCO too ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Going Forward Cash Flow
Authored by: bezz on Saturday, January 10 2009 @ 05:08 PM EST
Thanks for all the great posts, folks. It really helped bore into the details of SCO's Going Forward plan. It didn't pass the sniff test and you saved me a lot of time looking at the details with all the comments. I made this assessment based upon the 2007 10-K versus the Going Forward projections.

SCO tried to pass off some optimistic projections of revenues based upon new products, and it is hard to make an argument with those that will hold up in a bankruptcy court. The big problem with the reorganization plan's going forward projections is they have a track record of expenses that can be compared to the 10-K, and that doesn't hold water.

UNIX Revenue

The derivation of these numbers are a mystery. I'll accept a 20% decline per year in UNIX revenues based upon the 10-K. The comparable revenue reporting on the 10-K is “Product Revenue” (page 36).

SCO says it plans to sell the OpenServer asset, yet it includes OpenServer sales in its ongoing product revenue. On page 37 of the 10-K, OpenServer accounts for about 60% of SCO's UNIX revenue and they propose to sell that. How are they going to retain the revenue stream on an asset they sell?. If you subtract 60% from that (no more OpenServer to sell), the corrected revenue from the UNIX business should be:

2009 $5.6 million ($8.4 million overestimate)

2010 $4.5 million ($6.7 million overestimate)

2011 $3.6 million ($5.4 million overestimate)

SCO Mobile Business Revenue

There is no objective way to evaluate this revenue based upon past performance. The existing Mobility revenue is not broken out and these are new products. The going forward revenue is not particularly large, so I'll give SCO those numbers.

SCO UNIX Virtual

Another new product. As nearly as I can tell, this is intended to allow existing SCO server installations on old hardware to upgrade on other vendors (VMWare and Microsoft) virtual servers. It sounds good for the data center, but I have serious doubts about the assumptions of the number of copies they will be able to sell.

SCO's deployments are heavy on the Point of Sale (POS) application, with a single server in each retail outlet reporting back to corporate headquarters. To perform this upgrade, the client will have to buy new hardware and the virtualization software to replace a single instance of SCO's server. That isn't how virtualization pays off. Virtualization is cost-effective when you replace many SCO servers with one or two instances of the hardware / VM OS attached to a SAN. The VM software OS costs are going to be very expensive and companies are likely to opt to upgrade legacy software to Linux in lieu of paying for the VM OS / SCO Virtual costs.

True-Up License Revenue

SCO was contacted by a couple companies who realized they were running unlicensed instances of SCO software and realized $400, 000 revenue for FY 08. So, they got the bright idea to start chasing down unlicensed software and collect the proper licensing fees. They expect the revenue to increase almost 4x ($1.5 million) this year, 6.6x (9.9 million) the following and 1.5x (15.1 million) the year following. At $1700 per 10-seat license, that's about 9000 licenses per year by 2011. That seems reasonable because let's face it, there are a lot of companies whose licensing is deficient. Just a fact of life I've seen all to often consulting.

The problem is, can they really rely on that much new licensing revenue coming in and that many companies out of compliance? How do they expect to force compliance, through the BSA? And are companies willing to pay the additional license fees for old software or just upgrade to Linux? I really can't call this one. There really is no way to make a valid call that would stand up as a challenge to the plan. But it sure could push more companies to upgrade rather than pay the costs for their unlicensed legacy software from a vendor just out of bankruptcy and facing more legal problems.

Engineering and Professional Services Revenue

This is based upon 15% of the total of the SCO UNIX and SCO UNIX Virtual revenues; the percentage is a valid assumption. However, we've already looked at the problems with the revenues projected for those items. I doubt this number will hold up.

Expenses

Now we get to the heart of the problem with SCO's projections – the expenses going forward are absurd. SCO glosses over these in its going forward projections and assigns a few percentages and vague descriptions. But there are real problems with a few items. In particular, the SCOSource (litigation), Sales and Marketing, Research and Development, General and Administrative expenses are underestimated, sometimes drastically so.

The SCOSource (litigation) expenses are a farce because SCO faces additional litigation from IBM and SCO claims it will cost under $1 million per year when this line item has been $3.6million to $12.8 million on the 10-K. All they mention is that Novell legal fees are paid. IBM too, for that matter. But it does not cover the expenses associated with litigation of these cases, particularly the bond for the Novell appeal. Nor does it mention SCO is trying to ramp up the Autozone case again and those legal fees are not paid. And Red Hat waits on the sidelines for its case to resume. What about SUSE? Nothing is mentioned.

While SCO claims it will turn a $4 million profit for FY 09 going forward, they have overestimated its UNIX revenues by about that much alone (assuming OpenServer and Mobility assets sell in March). I estimate expenses are underestimated by about $9.6 million compared to the 10-K, and we're not even talking about additional SCOSource litigation expenses. Even if they get $6 million for the asset sales, it still doesn't get them through the first year out of bankruptcy.

The expenses are what got SCO into bankruptcy and they are distorting them in the going forward projections. I won't quibble with SCO's projections for new revenues (although, given management's performance record in the past, I am very doubtful), but their claims that they can slash expenses while both bringing new products to market and continuing litigation is unsupportable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lipstick on a pig ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2009 @ 08:52 PM EST
I've seen marketing departments put lipstick on a pig, with different degrees of
effectiveness, but this reorganization plan has to win an award. I have tried,
and failed, to see how this so called reorganization plan can be real. It is so
very full of self contradictions and unjustified assumptions.

So, if we accept this is not a real plan, what do we have here, what is the
purpose?

I) SCO are desparate, alone, the last throw of the dice, paintig the pig ad
hoping to fool the punters?

II) This is not the plan, this is a distraction, diversion, the real action is
elsewhere?




[ Reply to This | # ]

Contribution through Amazon no longer an option?
Authored by: camc on Saturday, January 10 2009 @ 11:51 PM EST
A click on the contribute-through-Amazon icon along the left side of the page
gives a message that as of Dec. 11, 2008, that Amazon no longer acts as an agent
for contributions. At least, that's my interpretation of what they're trying to
say.

If Amazon no longer takes contributions for Groklaw, the icon should be
removed.
If Amazon does still take contributions for Groklaw, what could be the purpose
of their off-putting message?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Never Gives UP
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 11 2009 @ 11:01 AM EST
People have asked here on this forum, after reading SCO's ridiculous 'plan' to
emerge from Bankruptcy, "why do they keep on with this charade?"

Think of it this way. SCO (once it placed its 'bet' with David Boies) has,
always, only had one goal -- to get to the courthouse steps with IBM.

They've taken all the slings and arrows, all the losses, had to fight with
Novell (who, from SCO's perspective, unexpectedly interposed themselves), and
like the Black Knight in the Monty Python movie, have suffered the amputation of
limbs, all of this -- just to get to those courthouse steps.

In their view, it's always been -- "get to the courthouse steps, and then a
miracle happens." Boies sold himself to SCO as the vehicle for the miracle.


So - seen that way, SCO's behavior here fits -- as they'll do anything and
everything to get to those steps.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's plan
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2009 @ 01:46 PM EST
SCO's strategy is now clear:

1) Try to pretend that IBM and Novell are in a separate lower-priority class.
2) Get all the other creditors to approve the plan (they will due to point 5).
3) Get a cramdown - the high-priority creditor class (everyone except IBM and
Novell) agreed, so they might be able to force acceptance of the plan over IBM
and Novell's objections.
4) Sell off anything they can.
5) Pay all the other creditors (except IBM and Novell) in full, with interest.
5) Keep enough money to pay salaries for the executive team for a bit.
6) Once the Novell appeal is over, realise they can never pay Novell as SCO now
has no assets. Give up and give IBM and Novell all the now-worthless shares in
SCO. IBM and Novell get nothing.

I believe and hope they'll fail at step 1 - Novell and IBM will object to being
in a lower priority class, and if there is any justice then they should win.
Novell and IBM will then probably have enough voting power to block the plan.

I expect SCO to fight very hard to try to win point 1, because if they succeed
then I don't see how the rest of the strategy can be stopped.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Vegas/Brooklyn odds on JAIL TIME??
Authored by: LaurenceTux on Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 12:56 PM EST
so calling out to any bookies in the group what are the odds that they will see
jail time (and the list of possible charges).

also as a side bet what are the chances of Darl and friends going on the hook
PERSONALLY for some of the funds owed??

[ Reply to This | # ]

Please, stop the nonsense
Authored by: jrvalverde on Wednesday, January 14 2009 @ 04:39 AM EST
While I am no friend of MS, I can't see anything wrong with the agreement
license requirements.

Basically, this boils down to the old discussion of GPL vs. BSD. MS says they
need you to use BSD because it is compatible with their closed-source model and
they want to use results they have paid for. That's all.

1. They explicitly state BSD licenses are OK. See 8.11

2. They are paying for research and they are open to share it with everybody
_without_ limitations, but mostly they want to ensure THEY can use it.

3. Your work remains yours and for you to license as you want as long as it can
be used in their closed-source code. 8.9

IMHO, when a public research institution (e. g. University) does research with
public money they have a duty to guarantee the results are and remain public,
and to promote further public development of knowledge; that makes GPL and alike
an optimal choice.

But when MS pays, they legitimately want access to the results. That's fair for
me as they pay. They could require results to be made available only to MS as
closed source (e. g. as such or allowing GPL for everybody plus a special
license for them) thus excluding other closed source companies.

Instead, they ask for either closed-source or BSD-like licenses. If you as a
student/University defend closed-source, it's not MS fault. If you defend FLOSS,
MS does not preclude you from using BSD which ensures not only MS but its
competitors as well will be able to use this work.

In order to ensure your work can be used by open and closed source companies the
only way is to avoid GPL. Linux developers know all too well the compatibility
problems.

All other terms are sensible in this light as well: they will open *their*
private IPR for use. If you don't use it, it's OK. If you do, they need to
review your publications to ensure you do not reveal secrets.

Same they request from you: not to use your own patents to later deny them use
of the software. If you don't it's OK, if you do you obligue to *sell* them a
license in reasonable terms. Note they do not ask for a free license, only that
it is not denied.

All in all, looks sensible if you consider they want to keep their closed-source
business model and refrain from entering the GPL vs. BSD freedom definition
argument.


---
Jose R. Valverde
EMBnet/CNB

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOBK#661
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2009 @ 03:36 PM EST
It's the Berger Singerman bill for December, up on epiq now.

Quite a bit under ASSET DISPOSITION/PRESERVATION and of course PLAN AND
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.

Some extracts from ASSET DISPOSITION/PRESERVATION ...

12/9/2008 AJS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AND EXCHANGE 0.50
E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS WITH D. LAMPERT REGARDING OFFER

So there is, or was, another offer on the table?

12/10/2008 AJS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH D. MCBRIDE 0.10
REGARDING MERCHANTBRIDGE REPLY TO OUR REVISIONS TO TERM SHEET

Would this be the MERCHANT BRIDGE? http://www.mbih.com/ Do we find our cash
laden Middle Eastern brethren here? The membership of the Advisory Board might
be of especial interest to the Brits among us at Groklaw.

12/18/2008 DL CONFER WITH REORG TEAM, REVIEW AND 0.60
RESPOND TO TERM SHEET REGARDING FREE AND CLEAR TITLE ISSUES, NEXT STEPS, MEMOS

12/28/2008 DL BEGIN REVIEW, REVISE DRAFT ASSET PURCHASE
AGREEMENT, FOLLOW UP REGARDING BID PRO DOCUMENTS, CIRCULATE FINAL APA FOR BOARD
COMMENT AND APPROVAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • SCOBK#661 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2009 @ 09:19 AM EST
    • SCOBK#661 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2009 @ 09:26 AM EST
More trouble for M$ un Europe
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 16 2009 @ 04:48 PM EST
<a
href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090116.wgtmicros
oft0116/BNStory/Technology/home">Globe and Mail article</a>

[ 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 )