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
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

Username:

Password:

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Wait a Minute. What Was That Darl Said About New Deals in 2003? - Updated
Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 08:10 AM EDT

Something clicked in my brain when I was slogging through the list of contracts SCO says it would like to transfer to unXis and its list of licensees going back to the '70s, which you can find as Exhibit A here and as Exhibit A continued here.

For some reason, it made me think about the 4Q teleconference SCO held on December 22, 2003 when it announced SCOsource and CEO Darl McBride listed customer deals during "the previous quarter". Would Exhibit A match his 2003 list? The exhibit does provide the years for most of the deals, so why not see?

Here are the SCO deals he mentioned as happening in that quarter of 2003:

Before we move on to today's SCOsource announcements, I'd like to make a few comments on our core Unix operating business. In our OpenServer and UnixWare product lines, we continue to see good uptake from existing customers while attracting new customers in our key vertical markets, which encompass large as well as small to medium businesses. Let me just rattle off a few of the customer deals that we completed transactions with during the previous quarter.

In North America the list would include organizations such as: the Department of Justice, Lockheed Martin, US Air Force, Accent Oil, Goodyear, AT&T, Avaya, CSK Auto, Pinkertons, 84 Lumber, Cracker Barrel Restaurants. McDonald's, GE Aircraft Engines, Daimler-Chrysler, and NASDAQ. To move on to Europe, we are looking at organizations like Barcrest, Marconi, Dolond and Atchison, Fleet Air Army, and Argos; in Germany BMW; out of Italy, Ministry of Finance. Moving on to AsiaPac area: out of Japan, we have companies like Toshiba, Matsushita Electronics, and Image Partner. Out of Taiwan: LCC, Taiwan educational training group. In China: China Central Bank, Peoples Bank of China, Highway Administration, and Shandong Province. In India: India Overseas Bank, Bank of Pakistan, and Bank of India.

You'll notice that he mentioned DaimlerChrysler as doing a deal in that quarter, but later, when SCO sued DaimlerChrysler, it said, and proved in court, that it had not used SCO's software in many years, almost a decade. Was anything on that list accurate? I thought it would be useful to take a look, now that we have Exhibit A available.

Did SCO really get all that new business in 2003? If it did, I can't find it on the exhibit. Of course, we know from the exhibits to the proposed APA that there is a schedule called Excluded Assets, which says SCO is retaining or not assuming all contracts not on the Exhibit A list. But when I show you all that is missing, it will have you scratching your head, if that is the explanation. If it isn't, it leaves two possibilities: 1) it wasn't true what he said, for whatever reason; or 2) SCO doesn't keep track of its deals very well, and Exhibit A is not complete. Both of those possibilities are disturbing, of course, but one is worse than the other.

Shouldn't there be a list of contracts that are excluded? It explains why Novell's lawyer ended up emailing SCO's lawyer to ask, what about the 1995 APA? Is it going to be assumed or not? He asked for an answer so he wouldn't have to "wade through" Exhibit A. I get that. Totally.

Here's the list again from the teleconference, but alphabetized, to make it easier to compare with SCO's Exhibit A, in all its many parts. (Note that the Exhibit A continued [PDF] is identical, as far as I can tell, with Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF].)

I've made some notations. If I couldn't find any agreement with the named entity on Exhibit A, it will be marked 'No'. If, on the other hand, there wasn't a 2003 deal, but there was one earlier or later with that entity, you'll find it so marked, with the details on where to find it in the exhibit. And some, particularly on the list of packaged products customers, had no dates at all, so on those I put a question mark. Here's the list from the teleconference and what I found on Exhibit A:

  • 84 Lumber - ? (Unknown, as no date is provided, but you'll find them as having bought a packaged product -- more precisely as a "Packaged Product Cure Customer -- on page 2 of Ex. A, Part 2 [PDF].)

  • Accent Oil - No

  • Argos - ? (There's a team services agreement in 2002, found on page 24 of Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF] and they are on the packaged product customer list on page 3 of Ex. A, Part 2 [PDF], but no year given)

  • AT&T - ? (It is listed as a packaged product customer on page 30 of Ex. A, Part 2 [PDF], but no year is given, and other than that there are agreements and supplements in the '80s and '90s on page 33 and 34 of Ex. A, Part 4 [PDF], but the most recent was in 1994. AT&T Singapore signed a deal in 1993, which you will find in Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF] on page 3, and AT&T Global California Software signed in 1995, found on page 18 of Part 1. On pages 37 and 38 of Part 1, there are also some source licenses from the '90s. And it is on the packaged product list on p. 4 of Ex. A, Part 2 [PDF].)

  • Avaya - Yes (A custom engineering agreement in 2003 is listed on page 7 of Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF] and an engineering services agreement in 2004 on page 16. It is also listed as a packaged product customer on page 4 of Ex. A, Part 2 [PDF] but no year given.)

  • Bank of India - No

  • Bank of Pakistan - No

  • Barcrest - No

  • BMW - No (There is an agreement in 1989 and supplements up to 1991, found on page 39 of Ex. A, Part 4 [PDF].)

  • China Central Bank - No

  • Cracker Barrel Restaurants - No

  • CSK Auto - ? (There is an agreement in 1997, found on page 5 of Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF] and on page 21 there are two, in 2004 and 2005 and on page 24 another one in 2004, a team services agreement, and on page 54 another two dated 1987 and supplemented in that year and 1990. Also it is listed as a packaged product customer on npage 8 of Ex. A, Part 2 [PDF].)

  • Daimler-Chrysler - No (Agreements in 1988 and 1997 by Chrysler; supplements in the same years in Ex. A, Part 4 [PDF] and on page 7 of Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF])

  • Dollond & Aitchison - No

  • Fleet Air Arm - No

  • GE Aircraft Engines - No

  • Goodyear - ? (It is listed as a packaged product customer on page 12 of Ex. A, Part 2 [PDF], but no year given.

  • Highway Administration - No (This one is unclear, but the only highway anything I noticed was on page 27 of Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF], an agreement in 1997 with a Delaware entity, General Instrument Corporation of Delaware Highway Information.)

  • Image Partner - No (There's an Imag Industries and an Imagen on p. 17 of Exhibit A, Part 5 [PDF], but neither has licensed anything since the '80s)

  • India Overseas Bank - No

  • Italy, Ministry of Finance - No

  • LCC - No

  • Lockheed Martin - ? (It is listed as a packaged product customer on page 15 of Ex. A, Part 2 [PDF], but no year is given.)

  • Marconi - No (There is an agreement on page 17 of Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF], but it's for the year 2000.)

  • Matsushita Electronics - No

  • McDonald's - ? (There is an agreement listed on page 7 of Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF] was in 2002 and on page 25 there is a team services agreement in 2004. But it is also listed, without a year given, as a packaged product customer on page 16 of Ex. A, Part 2 [PDF].)

  • NASDAQ - ? (It is listed as a packaged product customer on page 18 of Ex. A, Part 2 [PDF], but no year is provided.)

  • Peoples Bank of China - No

  • Pinkertons - No

  • Shandong Province - No

  • Taiwan educational training group - No

  • Toshiba - No (Agreements found in Ex. A, Part 3 [PDF], on pps. 51-53, in the years 1982, 1984, 1985, and 1986; supplements in 1987-1994 and also on p. 50 of Ex. A, Part 6 for 1986, and on page 17 of Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF] for the year 2002.)

  • US Department of Justice - No

  • US Air Force - No (Agreements in 1977, 1979, and 1984; updated most recently in 1988 found on page 54 of Ex. A, Part 6 [PDF] and on page 55, agreements for 1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1992. Supplements listed but no years provided, but the most recent release of Unix System V is Release 3.1. The Air Force Institute of Technology licensed in the 80s, found on page 27 of Ex. A, Part 4 p[PDF].)
The Air Force is the most surprising, considering the letter from a contractor saying the Air Force can't make it without OpenServer. But look at all the No's on the list, almost the entire list. And that's excluding all the unknowns, who probably aren't all 2003 deals, if any of them are.

Avaya's did happen in 2003. The only substantive deal I can find in 2003, although not on Darl's list, is with Gallo Winery. That's on page 6 of Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF].

What does it mean? Maybe nothing. Maybe something. It's a mystery. Perhaps others who have done discovery or can do it will be able to solve the puzzle someday.

I also couldn't help but notice that the 1999 Master Distributor Agreement with SCO China is being sent to UnXis, should SCO's ship come in on the 27th. What exactly is the deal with SCO China (Dascom)? That is found on page 18 of Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF], along with a separately listed Dascom distribution agreement in 1998 and on page 58 three Dascom (Holdings), Ltd. source licenses in 1990 and 1992. And SCO Software China, in the Dascom Bldg, is also listed as a packaged product customer -- "AFFILIATED DISTRI" -- on page 23 of Ex. A, Part 2 [PDF]. I mention this because it occurs to me that a couple of the items mentioned by McBride in that teleconference in 2003 might have been deals done by SCO China and so maybe are not on the list for that reason.

And I see USIS listed as a packaged product customer on page 27 of Ex. A, Part 2 [PDF]. There was a USIS affiliated with the Carlyle Group at one time. I used to see them on the logs, visiting Groklaw in the early days, which at the time puzzled me greatly. But now, with Steve Norris having been at Carlyle once, could that be the missing link as to how they knew about SCO?

Microsoft Licensing is listed on page 30 of Part 2 also, under the heading "Packaged Product Cure for 3PR", as is Novell. There is also a listing for Microsoft on page 30 of Ex. A cont., Part 1 [PDF] for Xenix code, but it's listed for $44,395, not $158,000+, the amount Microsoft Licensing just transferred to LNS.

If you see anything I missed, let me know, so I can correct any mistakes. I'm guessing though that you'd rather have a tooth pulled than wade through all those lists. I'm perhaps the only person on earth who has done it, and I am for sure a bit cross-eyed from all the effort to be accurate. But not too exhausted that I can't find this email from a guy at DTR reporting on June 15th that SCO had been sold to Norris, which of course turns out to be not precisely true:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:00:08 -0700
From: Jack Cipriano
Subject: SCO Group Inc has been SOLD

Here is GREAT news for the SCO Community.

On Monday 6-15-09 SCO was purchased by the Steven Norris Group.

Novelle and IBM's bid to force SCO into closing their doors failed, as a last minute deal was worked out to keep SCO in business, and the Court decided it was in everyone's best interest to allow the purchase to go through.

All creditors will be paid in full.

SCO will come out of Chapter 11 as a viable company.

SCO Unix licenses will continue to flow.

An official announcement will be sent in the next few weeks.

Rene Beltran, Executive Vice President of DTR Business Systems, was asked by SCO to appear in Court to give the Court some compelling reasons why SCO should not be forced into Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.

Although Rene's voice was not needed due to the last minute buyout, he was ready and willing to do his best to sway the Court in SCO's favor.

Jeff Hunsaker, President of SCO said "DTR's loyality will forever be appreciated by every one at SCO".

Regards,

Jack

Visit our "Entirely NEW" Web site at:
www.dtrbus.com
Jack Cipriano

Beltran was one of the individuals that IBM deposed. SCO Group also portrayed the deal as "definitive" on its website, if you recall, the page that explains the proposed deal [http://sco.com/company/legal/overview.html]. I wonder how they will explain that on the 27th?

Update: Groklaw member sumzero points out something I had never thought of, about the claim to have closed a deal with DaimlerChrysler in late 2003:

if scog had just completed a deal with dc in the previous year, why did they then send the correspondence re: the suit to an out of date dc business address? surely they would have updated their records upon closing that deal if it had actually happened.
Keep in mind that SCO sued DaimlerChrysler on March 3, 2004. Would they have forgotten or misplaced a new address that fast? But it gets even stranger. When DaimlerChrysler answered SCO's complaint with a Motion for Summary Dismissal, DaimlerChrysler said this is what happened:
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACT

1. In 1988 Chrysler Motors Corporation ("Chrysler"), and AT&T Information Systems, Inc. ("AT&T-IS") entered into the AT&T Information Systems, Inc. Software Agreement, Agreement No. SOFT-01341 (the "License Agreement") for the license of certain AT&T-IS software products. See Complaint ("Cmpl.") Exhibit A (License Agreement) at 1.

2. DaimlerChrysler is Chrysler's successor-in-interest to the License Agreement. See Affidavit of Paul R. Eichbauer ("Eichbauer Aff.") (attached hereto as Exhibit A) Exhibit 1.

3. The software products that AT&T-IS licensed to DaimlerChrysler pursuant to the License Agreement included "UNIX System V Release 3.0 Source Code" and certain modifications and certain derivative works based thereon. See Compl. Exhibit A (License Agreement) § 2.01 and attached Schedule at 4, 5, 6.

4. Section 2.05 of the License Agreement provides:

On AT&T-IS's request, but no more frequently than annually, Licensee shall furnish to [AT&T-IS] a statement, certified by an authorized representative of Licensee, listing the location, type and serial number of all Designated CPUs hereunder and stating that the use by Licensee of Software Products subject to this Agreement has been reviewed and that each such Software Product is being used solely on such Designated CPUs (or temporarily on back-up CPS) for such Software Products in full compliance with the provisions of this Agreement.
Compl. Exhibit A (License Agreement) § 2.05 (emphasis added).

5. SCO claims to be the successor to AT&T-IS's rights under the License Agreement. See Compl. ¶ 19 and Exhibit B (Letter from Bill Broderick to Chrysler Motors Corp. dated December 18, 2003 ("SCO Letter")).

6. On or about December 18, 2003, SCO sent a letter addressed to the "Chief Executive Officer of Chrysler Motors Corporation" in Highland Park, Michigan purporting to seek a certification from DaimlerChrysler pursuant to Section 2.05 of the License Agreement. See Cmpl. Exhibit B (SCO Letter).

Notice the date? December 18, 2003. It means that the letter to "Chief Executive Officer of Chrysler Motors Corporation" to a wrong address in Michigan was sent 4 days prior to the press conference on December 22nd, at which Darl claimed a deal with DaimlerChrysler had closed in the last quarter of 2003. And I note he didn't call them Chrysler Motors, which would have matched the letter they sent.

Things that make you go Hmm.


  


Wait a Minute. What Was That Darl Said About New Deals in 2003? - Updated | 270 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here, Please
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 08:16 AM EDT
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspick Discussion Here, Please
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 08:20 AM EDT
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here, Please
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 08:29 AM EDT
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wait a Minute. What Was That Darl Said About New Deals in 2003?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 08:32 AM EDT
Not sure it makes a difference to the result, but th company name is Dollond
& Aitchison - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollond_and_Aitchison

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wait a Minute. What Was That Darl Said About New Deals in 2003?
Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 08:38 AM EDT

Beltran was one of the individuals that IBM deposed.

He's also one of the individuals who wrote a supporting letter to TSG management telling how much of a hardship it would be for his customers if TSG were put into Chapter 7.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wait a Minute. What Was That Darl Said About New Deals in 2003?
Authored by: BsAtHome on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 08:42 AM EDT
It is very well possible that at least some of the deals were performed by
subsidiaries. They might not be listed properly. At the least we can see an
example of sloppy administration.
Considering the big words Darl McBride has been spawning, it is probable that he
told the world about potential customers instead of closed deals. It is all
about the spin. You might remember that he needed four profitable quarters in a
row. Add some creative administration to the spin and you get that.

---
SCOop of the day

[ Reply to This | # ]

Privacy?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 09:07 AM EDT
"I used to see them on the logs, visiting Groklaw in the early days, which
at the time puzzled me greatly."

Just as a side-note ... and I've not read the Groklaw privacy policy, but If I
visit a website, I rather think that the log of my activity should be considered
private, not used in a public article ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shouldn't there be a list of contracts that are excluded?
Authored by: Gringo on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 09:16 AM EDT
Good point. Not only that, but shouldn't there be a complete accounting of what assets SCO will remain with and what their financial state will be after the sale? After all, they expect to leave Chapter 11 behind, moving forward as a viable business, capable of paying their bills. They are not allowed to present evidence of the validity of their litigation claims, so their viability can not be vested in that pipe dream. Why didn't Judge Gross ask for a full accounting - not only the APA, but what will remain of SCO after the sale? How could he make any kind of decision about dismissing the Chapter 11 cases without seeing both sides of the coin?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Unix Licenses will continue to flow
Authored by: complex_number on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 09:38 AM EDT
said the email announcing the sale.

more like

"SCO Licenses will continue to dry up like a desert stream"

IMHO, no Company with an ounce/gramme of common sense would do UNIX License
business with SCO (in whatever disguise they might be wearing) after this
debacle.



---

Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42"

[ Reply to This | # ]

daimler chrysler deal
Authored by: sumzero on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 10:51 AM EDT
this one has been bugging me for a while now.

if scog had just completed a deal with dc in the previous year, why did they
then send the correspondence re: the suit to an out of date dc business address?
surely they would have updated their records upon closing that deal if it had
actually happened...

sum.zero

---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.

alan j perlis

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 11:03 AM EDT
As I stated previously, I had the misfortune to meet Darl. I was unimpressed
(before he became a CEO). I was not impressed by his intelligence, nor his
bearing. Though these many years later, I find I am unimpressed with his
fidelity. Notwithstanding; his assertions that he conforms to his religion and
its teachings, honesty being chief among them, I would not buy a used car from
him – let alone a used (and dare I say abused) business. His past is scattered
with law suits – his real forte – but this time his efforts are retuning exactly
what he (and others like Yarrow) deserve. My concern is with those who may have
been hurt by his lying. I can only say, “Thank You, PJ” for your continued
efforts exposing this dark, cockroach infested coven.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"completed transactions"
Authored by: ak on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 11:19 AM EDT
Maybe they sold support calls for a small amount of money and Darl McBride then
talked about "completed transactions".

[ Reply to This | # ]

DC was a Linux user when the suits commenced.
Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 11:45 AM EDT

You'll notice that he mentioned DaimlerChrysler as doing a deal in that quarter,

I find that highly suspicious. DaimlerChrysler bought 108 dual-processor Red Hat Linux workstations from IBM in October 2002, which means that at the time of the commencement of the legal threats against Linux users (at least as far back as August 2003), DaimlerChrysler was one. Why would DC have done any sort of deal with TSG, given that TSG had already announced that they (at least potentially) would be suing DC for using Linux?

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl? Not accurate? Surely you jest!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 12:25 PM EDT
Why, his sworn testimony to the court, under oath, was that what he says under
oath is questionable, but he always tells the truth to the SEC...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sending Extortion Letters ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 12:57 PM EDT
... they call "completed transactions" down there where Darl comes
from. Oh sweet irony that Darl wasn't even capable of properly addressing his
extortion letters to the proper recipients: even the mail delivery transactions
failed...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Something stinks in Denmark...
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 01:22 PM EDT
I like a good story. This one is starting to look something like "The
Firm". I imagine PJ can relate.

A couple of questions. It seems the list includes many existing customer's
contracts. Could they be using still existing contracts to make their (SCO)
claim about customers? I would doubt big names would want single year contracts.
Rather they would probably insist on multi-year agreements. Most companies do to
try to keep expenses predictable. Companies need that assurance so they can
predict expenses and have time to change if necessary (for example with
"sunset" products). However this still reeks since they sued
Daimler-Chrysler. But this is, after all, SCO.

This seems to have blown up in SCO's face, though they are slippery. If they are
called in court, and bankruptcy continues at chapter 7, are they dead? They
bought another month or so with this "plan".

With all due respect for Delaware and it's judicial systems; I think they were
caught a little off guard with this case. I think they treated SCO as an honest
company, and not see a serious problems with their proceedings. Now they have to
save some face and treat SCO differently. What are the possible options does the
court have? Are there sanctions or other repercussions?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Observation....
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 01:33 PM EDT
Darl is the key. Did he know what he was doing or relying on advisers? By now,
he should have known. With all this under the table, slippery transactions.
Where do the Feds fit in this picture?

I hate to say, since it will cost taxpayer dollars, but there has to be some
investigation. This is by far, not a normal business operation. SCO has cost
millions in taxpayer dollars with all their cases. More than likely, they will
die a slow death and no one will get a dime.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Here is a man (Darl) that has $100,000, for whatever
reason, can give this money (supposedly on loan) while his company lays off
employees and slowly dies. There is just too much going on to NOT get suspicious
about the proceedings. I think someone has to investigate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

White noise
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 01:35 PM EDT
Sorry, all these details are white noise to me. I don't much care now what
happened before June 15, 2009.

First, why hasn't all this stuff about Chapter 15 been discussed until now?
Everyone's had plenty of time for this.

Second, Cipriano says SCO was sold to Steven Norris. It was a done deal. IBM's
deposition of Norris seems to say that this is not true. So, then, who is the
buyer? Is there a buyer? If not, then what?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pizza Hut Northern Ireland and my Vet uses SCO
Authored by: TAZ6416 on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 01:35 PM EDT
Pizza Hut in Northern Ireland, and probably in the rest of the UK definatly used SCO based cash registers about a year ago, don't know if they still do. I saw one booting up when I was in getting a coffee when a Pizza Hut was just opening for business that day.

And my Vet uses a SCO system that runs off an old 486 in the reception and has WYSE terminals in each of the consulting rooms.

Where I work we ported an Oracle Database from Windows NT3.51 to SCO Unix back in 1995ish I think because a customer asked us to, but I think we turned that machine off a few years later and is no doubt in a landfill somewhere. Then again , that didn't stop them sueing Daimler Chrysler...

Jonathan

[ Reply to This | # ]

McDonald's used SCO long before 2003
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 01:59 PM EDT
McDonald's was using SCO Open Server 5 at least eight years. I was one of the
software developers working on the SCO-based restaurant system for most of the
last decade.

I don't know the details of the contracts with SCO, but they may have included
annual support contracts, and they would have included increases in the number
of licenses as the number of restaurants increased over the years. So, perhaps
that's what they mean?

[ Reply to This | # ]

More on Chrysler and UnixWare
Authored by: sk43 on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 02:55 PM EDT
Chrysler used (and may still use) UnixWare at its dealerships. Here are some interesting bits of info.

Here is a 1997 press release announcing a deal between Santa Cruz and Chrysler r.e. UnixWare link

"SANTA CRUZ, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 13, 1997--SCO (NASDAQ:SCOC) announced today that Chrysler Corp. plans to extend its successful U.S. corporate/dealer intranet into the international marketplace with the purchase of SCO UnixWare products and services."

-----------------------

Here is a company touting its work for Chrysler using UnixWare in 2000: link

"To enable the Chrysler Corporation to develop their MDS2 project on UnixWare servers, a team of SoftDomain engineers ported all the required Netscape products to UnixWare."

-----------------------

Here is a consultant who describes work done for Chrysler on UnixWare in the 1994-1999 timeframe: link

---------------- -----

Caldera touted sales to DaimlerChrysler in 2002 as well. link

"The past quarter included sales to many of our widely recognized accounts including Daimler Chrysler ..."

--------------------

Here is a newsgroup posting from someone who inherited a UnixWare server from the Chrysler dealership where they worked: link

-------------------------------------------

The Custom Engineering License Agreement from Exhibit A Part 1 matches up with the first press release in 1997. But one would expect other agreements as well. Perhaps SCO's bookkeepping is need of some cleanup.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl as an officer of the court
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 03:12 PM EDT

Strange concept, I know, but once SCO filed for bankruptcy, didn't Darl become
an officer of the court? How does this change how his conduct is viewed now? I
can only guess he would have less freedom to run his business than if he weren't
an officer of the court -- additional rules of conduct and such.

[ Reply to This | # ]

U.S. Government purchases.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 03:35 PM EDT
You aren't going to find any US Government agencies on SCO's current list of contracts; SCO isn't on the GSA Schedule. SCO products are currently resold to the government by Spectrum Systems Inc., out of Fairfax, Virginia. (Go to GSA Advantage and type OpenServer or UnixWare in the search box.) It is also possible that SCO products are resold under other contract vehicles; the GSA Schedule just happens to be the one that I am most familiar with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

USAF Transactions
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 04:54 PM EDT
Any USAF transactions probably won't show up as they were probably purchased
through a reseller. I can't speak directly for USAF transactions, but I know
firsthand that is how the US Army purchases them.

I do also know firsthand that the contractor is probably right. There are many
older systems that received their ATO's (Authorization to Operate) on SCO Unix,
and migration to Linux is not easy.

It's not a matter of the technical aspects, it's more related to all the red
tape associated with receiving an ATO.

The bureaucracy can be quite atrocious, and trying to re-accredit a system can
often be a rather futile exercise in frustration.

Should it be that way? Absolutely not, but that's the reality of the situation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So where's the NSA?
Authored by: Lazarus on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 05:52 PM EDT
I don't see anything that would be the SCO UNIX used in EKMS.

BTW, did a bit more research, and it was/is SCO UNIX v5.0 that's used in EKMS.

It was originally run on MS-DOS, but system/operational requirements required an
upgrade.

Most of this info is over 5 years old, which continues to reinforce my belief
that the SCO portion of the system can be easily replaced.

---
Any incoherancies on my part should be blamed on my use of Vicodin.
Unfortunately, it's for my back, so I'm not quite a House clone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Carefully misleading words?
Authored by: stegu on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 06:33 PM EDT
Perhaps I am more sensitive to the exact wording than a
native English speaker, but what Darl said was this:

> a few of the customer deals that we completed
> transactions with during the previous quarter

Note that the "customer deals" are not the transactions
per se - the transactions are made "with the deals".
With reservations for any misinterpretation due to
the fact that English is not my first language, this
does not seem like a natural choice of words. It
could be either sloppy wording or something which
was carefully crafted to give a false impression of
SCO having a more active Unix business than what was
actually the case, while not being an outright lie.

In my interpretation, a "transaction with a customer
deal" would include any kind of service provided for
any existing customer, including not only renewed
licenses but even very minor things like support calls
from existing licensees, or free software upgrades.
Even a termination of a license is a "transaction",
in some sense of the word, because SCO apparently had
the strange habit of requiring their licensees to
physically return stuff when licenses were terminated.

Darl did not actually say anything more specific. He
just gave the impression that SCO was alive and well,
and backed it up with very close to nothing.
Business as usual for SCO, I guess: bold claims,
but little or no substance.

Formally true? Possibly, even probably.
Honest? Certainly not.
Fraudulent? I wouldn't know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Address changes
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 06:59 PM EDT
if scog had just completed a deal with dc in the previous year, why did they then send the correspondence re: the suit to an out of date dc business address? surely they would have updated their records upon closing that deal if it had actually happened
They may have updated the shipping address or billing address. It is quit likely that Billing and Shipping have systems that do not talk to legal One of my government contracts was on a system to provide single point of contact updates for all departments. Previously privacy concerns prevented address updates from being shared between agencies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More than meets the eye? Less than meets the eye
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 26 2009 @ 08:54 PM EDT
Something else missing, Medical Manager. Medical Manager has moved tons of SCO
Unix over the years.
Correct me if I am wrong but I did not find them on the list, and Darl mentioned
them in more than one conference call.
Most of the servers they sell that I have seen are Acer's that arrive at the
customer site with SCO loaded. Acer is listed as a distributor.

Are some of the others not buying direct from SCOX?

Or is the list from SCOX suspect?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Elephant in the Room
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, July 27 2009 @ 05:34 AM EDT
(Note that the Exhibit A continued [PDF] is identical, as far as I can tell, with Ex. A, Part 1 [PDF].)
It being unusual, even for SCO, to file the same thing twice over under different titles, this suggests there should be an "Exhibit A Continued", the content of which reflects its title. If the second part is absent, that could explain why any number of items are missing from the list.

SCO stated one of their documents was 500 pages, yet we have counted far less than that in total. Could this represent the missing several hundred pages? Could this be why only a very small proportion of the names PJ looked for showed up in the list?

More importantly, and I expect this to be asked today and an unsatisfactory answer produced by SCO: why wasn't the full list provided? I can think of any number of SCO-like reasons excuses.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Amendment to the "PSA" is now up
Authored by: mpellatt on Monday, July 27 2009 @ 06:59 AM EDT
The amendment to the "PSA" is now up on epiq

The notice of filing here, and the amendment itself here

The new paragraph 12.4 (e) is a hoot

The putative purchaser remains SCO's agent, Norris.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Possible explanation for foreign deals
Authored by: s65_sean on Monday, July 27 2009 @ 07:06 AM EDT
Not that I'm defending SCO in any way, but a thought popped into my head
concerning the announced deals in foreign countries, and why those contracts
and/or licenses aren't showing up in the schedule of included assets for the
current proposed sale of assets.

Perhaps those contracts and/or licenses are owned by SCO's foreign subsidiaries,
and the sales agreement assumes that they would transfer to the purchaser as
part of the foreign subsidiary that owns them, or in the case of the China
subsidiary, which was not wholly owned by SCO, they could not transfer, as SCO
does not own them to begin with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What did they tell SEC about Norris?
Authored by: turambar386 on Monday, July 27 2009 @ 09:08 AM EDT

Webster's great postings recently re-examining previous testimony regarding Stephen Norris' role has got me thinking; what did they tell SEC about it?

For instance, their 10-Q from March 2008 states:

On February 13, 2008, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) with Stephen Norris Capital Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“SNCP”), whereby, SNCP agreed to provide financing to fund the Company’s plan of reorganization filed on February 29, 2008 in the Company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case presently pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware

Does this sound to you as though SNCP was going to provide the financing themselves? It goes on to say:

...the MOU, the plan of reorganization and the transactions they contemplate are subject to various changes and conditions precedent , including: (1) SNCP’s due diligence and (2) the Bankruptcy Court’s approval.

Why does their agent Norris need to do due dilgence? Additionally, they filed an 8-K that same month and attached a press release which states:

Stephen Norris Capital Partners (SNCP) has, subject to continued due diligence, committed to provide up to $100 million to finance the SCO Plan of reorganization and to take the Company private. Stephen Norris said, “This reorganization plan is a positive step for SCO’s customers, partners and stockholders and a major win for all parties. This plan will enable it to grow its business, especially outside the U.S., and if possible, settle its outstanding litigation on a favorable and reasonable basis.” Mark Robbins, co-partner with Stephen Norris in SCO’s investment transaction said, “We have a firm belief in SCO’s technology platform and its potential to be expanded especially outside of the United States. SCO has a solid customer base of industry leaders. This Plan provides the necessary direction and strategy to begin moving in a positive direction.”

Again, looks to me like they are telling the SEC that Norris and Robbins are putting up the cash themselves. And what did Darl say under oath during the Novell trial?

Q. As the CEO of either Caldera or SCO, have you ever certified an SEC filing, either a Form 10K or 10Q with the knowledge that it contained a false statement?
A. Not that I'm aware of.

[ Reply to This | # ]

** The "What have we heard from the Hearing? Yet!" thread **
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 27 2009 @ 09:45 AM EDT
<smiles>
Since we know everyone who could not attend is dying to be
there, we keep checking for any news. Wish there was a Live
Feed? Would yo watch it on Court-TV?

Since it's now 9:45 AM, I'll beat everyone to the punch.

If you want to ask, "What have we heard?"
Post it in this thread. ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting - Wait a Minute. What Was That Darl Said About New Deals in 2003? - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 27 2009 @ 09:50 AM EDT
I just wonder, if the annual license fee was not too much, and SCO just kept
billing Chrysler, if those bills were simply paid, in an under the radar kind of
thing. I suspect that it wasn't until SCO sued Chrysler that they sat up and
took notice of what was going on, and probably made sure that that bill didn't
get paid any more. Probably woke up a lot of other people too, and made them
look at what they had. If you don't use the software anymore, you surely don't
want to be sued. It would be very interesting to see what happened to their on
going licensing after they announced their bomb shell? Did they start to get a
lot of cancelations?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The new PSA - signatures and initials
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 27 2009 @ 11:01 AM EDT
Note the last page of the PDF
the signature page.
Darl signed it 3 times, Steve signed it.
It's not dated or witnessed.

Take a look at the previous 7 pages.
No initials on the pages.
No chain of proof the amendment is complete & unchanged.
It only works if Darl and Steve agree to agree on any given
day. If they disagee one can contest the other pulled a fast
one and switchd pages.

Anyone could take a page, rewrite it and make a whole new
agreement, without any chain of evidence showing the
agreement was altered. In fact, take that last page and you
could add it to any other 8 page amendment to a bawdy story
and still have an equally valid document.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing Report
Authored by: RFD on Monday, July 27 2009 @ 11:02 AM EDT
In recess.

PJ, did you get my email?

---
Eschew obfuscation assiduously.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Emerging pattern
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 27 2009 @ 01:16 PM EDT
SCO violates Judges order about undisclosed evidence, IBM objects, objection
overruled.

Look familiar?

[ 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 )