|
Warner Bros. Likes What SCO is Selling |
|
Friday, September 05 2003 @ 11:23 PM EDT
|
It's a tad hard to know what is really going on in the license business in SCOLand. First they will be sending out invoices. Then they wouldn't dream of it. Then they actually are sending them. Then they haven't, but they will. Then they will soon. Then they will soon. Then they will soon. Then they will in a few weeks. Or was it months? I'm confused.
The changeable story doesn't stop the stock from rising, but it is making people start to talk, even out loud. For example, it appears SCO has the honor to have at least one honest employee, the unfortunate Kieran O"Shaughnessy, who had the unhappy task of representing SCO as a speaker at the recent UNIX conference in Australia, and having to sit there and watch Greg Lehey and Con Zymaris present all the evidence against there being any infringing code in UNIX.
Now, ZDNet Australia says he is "seeking clarification" from SCO headquarters as to exactly what the company is or isn't planning for Australia and New Zealand as far as invoicing commercial users there is concerned. Well, join the crowd, Mr. O'Shaughnessy. We would all like some clarification from SCO. Here's what his puzzlement is based on:
"O'Shaughnessy told ZDNet Australia that he was still to hear back from U.S. spokesperson Blake Stowell, who told ZDNet Australia parent company CNET News.com earlier this week the company planned to start sending out invoices to commercial Linux users 'probably sometime this month' as part of its strategy to impose Unix license fees for Linux use. . . .
"However, O'Shaughnessy suggested the report of an invoicing program 'did not ring true,' saying it contradicted strategy discussions he had had with his counterparts in the U.S. just two weeks ago. The company had, he said, no plans to distribute invoices to commercial -- or non-commercial -- Linux users in Australia."
Mr. O'Shaunessy appears to believe that the reporter got it wrong. There is at least one other possibility he may not yet be ready to acknowledge.
Meanwhile, right in the SCO bull's eye, in the US, Linux users are reportedly saying en masse they will just ignore any invoices received, despite SCO's threats to follow up the invoices with legal action:
"'I find it hard to believe that small companies will even bother to respond, and SCO does not have the resources to go after them in a sensible way,' James Youngman, treasurer of the UK Unix User Group, told vnunet.com .
"'It is likely that SCO will collect money from big companies, but they will pay more out of caution than any conviction that SCO is right.'
"But Mike Davis, a senior researcher at analyst Butler Group, believes that even larger companies will keep the corporate chequebook safely in the company secretary's drawer for the time being.
"'I think that companies will take the invoice and put it on a shelf or deposit it with their lawyers and tell them to wait until the IBM case is settled,' he said. 'The IBM case has to take precedence [over any case against users brought by SCO]. What would a company director be doing paying an invoice before a court case is settled?'"
Go after them in a sensible way? I don't see how that can be arranged, considering no one seems to believe they have a legal right to do it in the first place. Things aren't working out so well in the license department, but not to worry. SCO has not run out of someday, maybe, could be threats. Now they are hinting they may be suing SGI soon, so look for their stock to start down the runway and get airborne again shortly, on news of that getting out. The stock market is so logical, don't you find?
Here's why reporter Stephen Shankland believes this is next on the SCO agenda:
"SCO on Friday declined to comment on future legal action, but Chris Sontag, the senior vice president in charge of SCO's effort to derive more revenue from its Unix intellectual property, has said two things that suggest SGI is a likely target.
"First, Sontag said in June that SCO is contemplating legal action against another major North American hardware maker besides IBM. Second, in an August presentation at which SCO detailed some of its complaints about Linux code, Sontag described SGI file system software called XFS in a list of 'examples of significant infringing derivative works' contributed to versions 2.4 or 2.5 of the heart, or kernel, of Linux."
Now, Shankland is a capable reporter, so he actually called SGI and asked them:
"SGI said its conversion of XFS into an open-source program is permitted. 'We believe our release of XFS as open source to Linux was consistent with our Unix contract with SCO,' SGI spokeswoman Marty Coleman said. She declined to comment on whether SGI is in discussions with SCO."
Of course, going by what SCO says may not be the best trajectory on to the reality highway. But you never know. I'd like to see that contract. Still, as the article points out, winning the IBM suit wouldn't mean winning against SGI. If they want money from SGI or the code ripped out, they do have to sue them in addition to IBM, which is a lot of money and effort for a little company that says MS or some other sugar daddy like Sun isn't paying their legal bills.
However, there is more than one way to get money. It seems SCO has some new customers rushing to sign up, not for Linux licenses, but as customers for their new UNIX web services:
"SCO has begun a Web-services initiative and recently won some major new software clients, including McDonald's, Johnson & Johnson, and Warner Bros. 'Those are Open Server or Unixware customers' SCO spokesperson Blake Stowell told NewsFactor. The company's stock is trading near its 52-week high."
Warner Bros.? Well, well. I wonder what they find so appealing about SCO? Something tells me it can't be the software. Don't they do movies and, um, music? As in the RIAA? Perhaps they see an ally in SCO's declared noble cause of establishing if IP will have value in the internet age, as McBride put it?
Well, if birds of a feather are going to flock together like this, remind me not to go to their movies or buy their music. Oh, I forgot. I already do that.
Having some well-heeled birds on your side can pay for some more lawyers, and heaven only knows, SCO seems to need better legal advice. Still, the music business doesn't seem to be doing all that well itself these days. They think it's because of online piracy. It's not. It's because of people like me, who some time ago decided they would never buy any of their products again to time indefinite, even forever, because we hate their behavior. I don't care what kind of online service the RIAA members come up with, I am not a potential customer.
Bullying your customers isn't a viable business model, because we have free will. And it's our money you want and need to sustain you. We can live without your software, your music, and your movies too, and if we hate you enough, we will. SCO might be well-advised to start having some deep thoughts on that very subject, as even some analysts are beginning to warn them.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
wouldnt that be vultus customers or did they combine the two companies
together?
br3n brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 09:10 PM EDT |
When can we expect DirecTV to join in the fun??? D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
you know i kept harping on the riaa/mpaa and we knew there had to be a tie in
and here it is
pj another excellent article.
maybe we need to go back and dissect every word they have said again as someone
did looking for the hidden meanings a few nites ago hehehe
br3n brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
I find the Warner Bros angle very interesting.
It occurs to me that with the Internet, no band or musician is required to put
their music out via a record company any more. Given the example of the Creative
Commons license, or the GPL and other open source licenses, an act doesn't have
to involve the RIAA or even copyright law if they don't want to. They can put
the music out under any license that hasn't been declared illegal.
It won't be long until there are popular bands who print their own CDs, sell
them for a reasonable price by mail order, go on tour, and get airplay (or at
least college/Internet radio play) and become millionaires without money ever
falling into the hands of anything which even remotely resembles a record
company. "Content companies" like Warner Bros must find the idea of a truly
independent musician terrifying, and I'm wondering whether Darl & Co., have also
considered this angle.
Is it possible that when SCO likened their IP troubles to those of the RIAA,
they were not just using the RIAA as an example of their own concerns, but
actually advertising for allies?
I'm beginning to wonder just how far this will end up stretching.
*tinfoil hat on*
Is there an unholy alliance of movie makers, record companies, and publishers
which has decided to back SCO on the theory that killing the GPL will kill every
other open source license, including those licenses that don't relate to
computer code at all? Is the SCO suit an attempt to distract the anti-IP
community at what the RIAA considers a crucial time? Maybe when we looked at
Microsoft financing the suit we were all wrong, or at best half-right...
Could SCO turn into the "point man" for a lot of "IP" concerns in a lot of
industries?
It's possible. And if that's what's happening, it could explain a lot about what
we're perceiving as the low quality of reporting on the issue, the seemingly
senseless claims, and the consistently rising stock price.
Scary huh? Booga booga.
*tinfoil hat off* Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
Well SCO is on a suicide run so Don't expect DTV to join in that. On DTVs behalf
I can understand why they are doing what they are doing but they do need to do
some research first.
--Shaun Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
"SCO has begun a Web-services initiative and recently won some major new
software clients, including McDonald's, Johnson & Johnson, and Warner Bros.
Those are Open Server or Unixware customers'"
Gotta love that spin. All those companies have divisions with existing
installations, and knowing one of those companies pretty darned well, it's the
customers rather than the sales that were "major." Maybe new licences, but
those aren't new accounts. These are most likely all additional licenses for
existing turnkey applications. The company I'm familiar with uses Lucent/Avaya
voice mail equipment all around the world, which happens to have UnixWare under
the hood. Mw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 09:35 PM EDT |
alex i am not sure but i think some of the online music places have already
been caught offering some of the independant artists songs without notifying
them of it that may tie in that they are trying to force them into a contract
maybe by saying here is your money or something to that effect. might just be
and end run all of them worked out
that sba group,mpaa,and riaa and maybe M#
maybe we need to dig even deeper into the money trail. br3n brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 09:37 PM EDT |
brenda banks: I want to apologize for one of the links I provided when I
answered yesterday about Sen Hatch. The name of the site struck me as humourous
(in reference to Senator Hatch's musings about destroying illegal file traders
PC's). My son was using my computer at the time, so I was searching for a
article about it using my Progear (a wireless webpad) and lynx.
Later when I got back on my PC I saw that the site had a tag line that
unfortunately contained an
offensive comment embedded in it's graphics. I hadn't seen that while using
lynx, and am sorry if you were bothered by it. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 09:39 PM EDT |
harlan i never saw it
i dont take offense that easy
dont worry about it
br3n brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:12 PM EDT |
By they way, does it make sense to anyone that SCO is suing two different
companies for two different journaling filesystems?
I can just see this:
IBM's lawyer: "Mr. McBride, you're also suing SGI over their XFS filesystem. Can
you please tell the jury which filesystem was actually SCO's filesystem in the
first place?"
McBride: Uh. We own them both because they were both derived from SCO code.
IBM Lawyer: Do either of your UNIX products actually use either the XFS or JFS
filesystems?
McBride: No, they do not.
IBM Lawyer: I'm looking here at the Filesystem Howto.
According to this, none of the filesystems in SCO's OpenServer line of products
is a journaling filesystem. Is that correct?
McBride: (Starts to look unhappy) Uh... that is correct.
IBM Lawyer: And SCO's own VxFS journaling filesystem, used in your Unixware
product, was developed by Veritas. This filesystem is also used by in HP-UNIX
and Solaris. Is this correct
McBride: (Even more uncomfortable) Yes, to the best of my knowledge that's
correct.
IBM Lawyer: So in fact, SCO has never developed its own journaling
filesystem?
McBride: No, we haven't.
IBM Lawyer: Mr. McBride, could you explain to the jury how two different
companies could steal the same journaling filesystem your company never
developed in the first place?
Also, I like
this a lot. Can we give SCO's board the Voight-Kampff Test? I'll bet
they're all replicants... Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
Has anybody thought that maybe IBM pushed SCO into high-FUD gear?
There was talk berfore the AIX licence 'revocation' that IBM and SCO were 'in
talks' on some kind of settlement.
I can just see the hope of some kind of settlement goosing McBride on, egging
him to make more and more outrageous claims, thinking
"IBM's at the table because we're hurting their Linux-derived revenue, let's
hurt that some more", maybe increase their offer.
But in fact IBM had only the smallest glimmer of intent to settle, and the more
SCO went down their road the less IBM became interested in settling.
While chasing a chimera, McBride painted himself into a corner.
Unfortunately these anti-Linux antics acts may have dropped a gift in his lap
(aka the increased stock price.) Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
Ooops!! I must correct myself. SCO's OpenServer does have a journaling
filesystem. The HTFS filesystem is a journaling filesystem.
Sorry.
However, I think some of the business above is still valid. Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
Hi all. Comments are not recording any more on the last article, so I will
repeat one here, to Clifton Hyatt, and I hope he sees it:
Thank you very much for the offer of help on transfering to the new site and the
tip on slashcode. As MathFox mentioned, we are using geeklog. But I do need
help with one design issue, and if you or anyone can help, I'd be very grateful.
The designer of the Woodlands theme for this site has graciously allowed me to
use it on the new site also, but I can't figure out how to make that happen in
geeklog, not being a php person. Geeklog is php. Any gurus out there know how
to do that? If so, pls. step forward and lend a hand. thanks. Geeklog is at
geeklog.net
To Brenda, it was because of your posts that I noticed this Warner Bros. detail.
thanks.
On "lost" comments, don't worry. I was able to retrieve them. They just aren't
showing up publicly. But they will on the new site. Radio seems to have a
limit to how many there can be before it falls down dazed and confused. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
PS - Darl "contracts are what you use against people you have a relationship
with" will file suit against SGI and perhaps HP.
If SGI execs were to turn around and put some heat on IBM and FUD on Linux
through the press, (the way SUN has) SGI would be exempt.
But SGI is further down the road to realizing where their future is than SUN is,
and supporting SCO now would not bode too well for SCO's future.
SGI - Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
I bet someone at IBM is just kicking themselves, wondering why somebody didn't
see the opportunity to scoop up UNIX from Santa Cruz Op. and really stick it to
SUN. Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:46 PM EDT |
Hey PJ,
I just had a thought. How about a Groklaw IRC channel?
Alex Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 11:28 PM EDT |
Alex, hmmm. I'll ponder that one. Right now, I about have my hands full trying
to keep up with things already
on the table, but maybe down the road. I'll keep it in mind. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 12:02 AM EDT |
I found the Shankland story interesting in another way. Apparently the trade
press has become dissatisfied with the rate at which SCO is leveling new
threats, so they have taken matters into their own hands by writing stories
about new and exciting threats that SCO hasn't even made.
If you read Shankland's story closely, you can see that he is fabricating this
"threat" to SGI on the basis of old quotations pasted together. We didn't have
any new threats from Darl or Chris this week, so by Jove, we'll just make some
up. I found the whole thing a new low in what has already become the computer
industry trade press' worst performance ever.
Has anyone else noticed that somebody -- Boies? Yarrow? Somebody with a brain?
-- has stopped the nonsense of having a half-dozen loose cannons running around
speaking on behalf of SCO? One of the first things they should have done,
minutes after filing the IBM suit, was appoint one person to be the Official
Mouth Of SCO. It's great fun for us to have all this material out there full of
silly and contradictory statements, but if SCO ever gets into a courtroom that
stuff is going to come back to bite them badly. They finally seem to have
figured that out. I haven't seen a word from anyone but Blake Stowell in over a
week.
PJ -> I am a PHP wizard. You have my email. Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 12:06 AM EDT |
What is this about moving the website? I have enjoyed reading all the
information that you have been providing on this site. I check other sites as
well, but this is the one site that I have enjoyed the most. It has certainly
been the most informative.
Trent. Trent[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 12:33 AM EDT |
Bob,
You're not the only one who noticed that; Robert Hahn posted a scathing retort on Shankland's story.
Cringely has a biting article
on lawyers and "sharp" business; I wonder if SCO being left out of it was an
oversight... Dick Gingras - SCO caro mortuum erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 12:38 AM EDT |
Trent,
Groklaw's readership has outgrown the current site; the software on which it
runs can't scale with that increase, so PJ is in the process of rehosting and
converting to new and more scalable software. As has been pointed out, the new
software is Geeklog. Dick Gingras - SCO caro
mortuum erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 12:44 AM EDT |
From the beginning, SCO has tried to associate themselves with the RIAA, but the
two are very different. What the RIAA does is essentially legal, while SCO is
essentially committing fraud. If the RIAA wanted to be like SCO they would go
after RMS for singing the Free Software Song... (Actually that's not a bad
idea).
I am interested in their web services sales. My understanding is that Vultus
sells Windows software. As I read the article, SCO is using their existing
UnixWare connections to sell Vultus software which runs on Windows.
BTW sales of UnixWare were down 25% from the first to the second quarter this
year. :) error27[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 01:02 AM EDT |
Linux Weekly News (http://lwn.net/) is reporting that actually
purchasing a Linux IP license is more
difficult than it seems (http://lwn.net/Articles/47881/). If
that report is to be believed even SCO's sales staff don't know when it'll
actually be possible to purchase a Linux IP license.
Ewen Ewen McNeill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 01:17 AM EDT |
Bob, I'm sure you are right, but I can't place it. I don't want to email info@... Would you be willing to email me
first?
Thanks so much. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 01:40 AM EDT |
Found this link provided by Robert Hahn in a 2nd reply (farther down then the
one Dick Gingras pointed to above), explains the three step test that the court
has basically adopted concerning "derivative works" in regards to software.
Rather interesting read, don't think the link has been up here before.
http://www.ladas.com/Patents/Computer/SoftwareAndCopyright/Softwa06.html
Very legalistic, but the most likely way the court will decide.
Thomas Thomas LePage[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 02:01 AM EDT |
Warner Bros. = Looneytunes. It's a natural fit for SCO.
Seriously, as pointed out above - I believe these are all existing SCO customers
(J&J and McD's are for sure). SCO probably gave them a free "web services" set
of software as part of their support contract(s). I doubt any additional monies
changed hands. Raving Luni[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 04:46 AM EDT |
pj here's a small collection of icons for groklaw
http://me
mbers.dodo.com.au/~monkymind/groklaw/groklaw.icons.tgz monkymind[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 05:21 AM EDT |
There's one small thing that's confusing me about this whole deal. Surely
sending out invoices _prior_ to any case being brought, or judged, is extortion?
Add to that mail fraud and you have a hell of case going for RICO to come into
play, and that's some heavy-handed stuff to deal with.
I'm beginning to thing that the tales of invoicing are a blind simply because of
the above. I'm also bemused because it seems that McBride, Stowell & Sontag
appear to be 'loose cannons' from a PR point of view...could someone tell me
what is actually admissable in court as evidence in, say, the Red Hat
declaratory thing? Are their lawyers so confident of winning _everything_ that
nobody is tugging on McBride's sleeve?
There is something else to consider. All of the fluff isn't for the benefit of
'us'. It can't even really be FUD because every strawman is being knocked
down...the one thing I am considering is that this could be hiding something
else, but I have no idea what, unless my previous comments regarding pushing DRM
are close. (and I'm even unsure of that particular conspiracy theory)
Hang on a second, doesn't a lot of this stuff mean they might not get a fair
trial?
James[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 05:21 AM EDT |
I'd just like to reinforce the point that Mw made
McDonalds use OpenServer in their tills, if they open a new branch that is a few
mor licenses for SCO at whatever highly discounted price they have agreed.
Warner have a voice controlled telephone booking system in the UK and presumably
the US too, if that is the Lucent / Avaya one then they need a new Openserver
license each time they open a new cinema.
They probably don't even like being stuck with SCO because they don't see any
long term support and are probably trying to move to something different but
changing a platform that you have deployed worldwide takes time.
I expect Warner aren't too happy about the comparisons being levelled between
the RIAA and SCO as they can probably see that what SCO are doing has far less
legal backing than what the RIAA are up to. The record companies do need to
realise that it isn't piracy that is killing their sales it is overpriced poor
quality products but that isn't relevant here. Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 05:26 AM EDT |
Alex: Excellent post. Is this true? If so it would have to go Veritas -> VxFS
-> IBM -> JFS -> Linux. I think that would be very hard to prove.
I think RIAA / GPL angle has some legs, but mostly its probably used by SCO to
talk the "language" its potential customers want to hear. Like, "..you know
buying our web services not only gives you what you want but it pokes the GPL in
the eye. That GPL is just like the problem you all had with file sharing. We
have to protect or IP. Why investing in something unsure like linux which is
doing something as bad as file sharing."
I agree with most above. Its the weirdest PR release I've ever seen. How big
were these contracts? How much money? Why have some lawyer say this? Where's
the basic PR release? When you are losing your shirt on a product line every
dollar is announced to the fullest. Something is very wrong here. BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 05:27 AM EDT |
Alex: Until the illustrious PJ has enough copious free time, I invite you and
any other interested parties to join me on irc.slashnet.org in #groklaw. With
sufficient mass of people, there might even be a discussion at some point :)
Looking forward to Groklaw's new website, and PJ's next research even more
so. The Silent Majority[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 05:47 AM EDT |
Was looking at more SCO silliness this morning and came across some more
nonsense on the Gartner Group's website. The article is titled "SCO License
Fees Would Hurt Linux Market." http://www3.gartner
.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=116445
The Gartner Group has been caught red-handed spreading M$ FUD before, and this
is another genuine example of M$ FUD.
Among this article's "recommendations"- delay deployment of 2.4 kernel based
applications <G>. Gee, wouldn't Gates-Ballmer love it if everyone did
this.
I tried to send a quick e-mail off to George J. Weiss, the "anal-yst" (that's
what HE calls himself, just like Laura DiDiot calls herself an "anal-yst") who
wrote this crap, but couldn't find an e-mail link. I wanted to tell him that
that I had a VERY good laugh over his top recommendation: Contact SCO to discuss
its claims, compensation requirements and your potential future liability.
I would have told him how I e-mailed SCO, and also called them, asking about
their vaporware licenses. Now, I am not so egotistic as to proclaim myself an
"industry analyst." But George is, or at least his employer is. I would have
asked him who, if anyone, PAID for his "research and analysis." I would also
have asked him if HE had tried calling SCO about these licenses- or merely read
a SCO press release as the "anal-ysis" phase of the "research." Jayson Blair,
where are you? You could jump-start that lagging career by becoming an IT
Industry reporter....
I think there is going to be a tremendous amount of negative fallout for the
FUD-throwers over SCO's shennanigans. I save a copy of every stupid article
like this so that I can remind everyone after the nonsense is over and these
websites have been "sanitized."
In all fairness, I pulled up a list of other articles written by Mr. Weiss, a VP
at Gartner, and attempted to determine whether or not any sort of rational
analysis was attempted in any other article. This article was a freebie, or, in
Gartner-speak, "not available for individual purchase"- the other articles were
not. Gartner wanted cash for this other "research." FUD is free, anything else
costs cash <G>. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 07:05 AM EDT |
maybe the riaa ,mpaa and M$ have some deal cooked up to prevent filesharing and
they know that it wont help against linux so they are backing this effort to
kill linux because of that?
sorry conspiracy theory mind going again
br3n brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 07:22 AM EDT |
There is no need for SCO to sue SGI at this point in time. A lawsuit would take
just as long as the IBM one, so would merely drain precious cash. Therefore, if
SCO were to announce a suit against SGI it could only be to generate publicity
and keep the pump-and-dump scheme going.
The poster who was told the first two licensees had "settled" with SCO, if
correctly informed, confirms the theory that SCO offered bargain-bucket aite
licenses to get some PR. If they only made two sales on *this* basis, their
drive is doing much worse than I would have guessed at the start of this sorry
affair.
Finally, my thoughts re conspiracies - SCO's actions have been so ill-planned,
and their arguments so pitiful, that the only conspirators could be Larry, Moe,
and Curly.
Actually that may be wrong - saying "nyuck nyuk nyuck" in a strange voice is a
more cogent legal argument than anything SCO have managed! Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 07:28 AM EDT |
<This article was a freebie, or, in Gartner-speak, "not available for
individual purchase"- the other articles were not. Gartner wanted cash for this
other "research." FUD is free, anything else costs cash . >
Sort of a paid political announcement, brought to you by the Committee for
Inovation in Computing <G>
There was a link here about an article on the sad state of the IT press a while
back, but I can't find it. Anyone recall this? Greg T Hill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 08:24 AM EDT |
PJ and all,
PJ - Today, I agree even MORE with your Integral Capital Management companies
and Silver Lake Partners (a who's who of Silicon Valley and Wall Street,
including Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, major investment banks, and
big institutions such as CalPERS and the World Bank) conspiracy theory! Only
today, it appears that some members of the Silver Lake group may not understand
that they are being used and are being BIG TIME *duped* by Microsoft and Darth
Vader/Gates. Let's see if we can add one plus one?
PART 1 - Well, TO GIVE SCO some credit (applaud)... The web services product
from SCO - may be a product that is usable. AND GUESS WHAT... the GOOD NEWS is
that it ain't MICROSOFT software that these fellow computer users ended up
buying! I wonder how that sits with Microsoft?
SCO and everyone need to understand that the wonderful thing about the market
place is that there is free lunch, there is fast food, there is the local
sit-down eatery, and then there are "rated" eating places..., each with a
different price point and a different product personality. With computer
software, SCO is trying to get rid of the LINUX version of the GPL "free lunch"
(but really nothing is totally free -as LINUS has allowed for folks to make a
profit by selling their apps if they want to). SCO may be trying to kill the
Penguin AND if they win then they also will end up destroying ALL the eggs as
well. SCO really needs some smarter people in charge, ones that understand the
big picture better! WHY? (see next section)...
PART 2 - THE CONSPIRACY:
SCO is way-too-overly-paranoid about GNU GPL LINUX. It does seem that they are
afraid that GNU GPL LINUX will take away from their UNIX postition. SCO's
history with LINUX as to just what is that they are doing? All of SCO's actions
(or lack of actions) are a big debate as it appears that they want to own the
work that others have done with the LINUX kernel and make free use of any LINUX
related opensource application development to help sell their "stolen or FORKED
kernel" . SCO is wrong to steal from the OpenSource arena, as the existence of
the OpenSource OS and apps will only serve to make them better in the end (if
they are not lazy), Yep, the open source OS and apps will make them do is to
make them do what they are doing BETTER, and offer better support for it (so as
to justify the price for the higher value when someone is shopping for a
solution)!
SCO's problem is not the LINUX version of the GPL. SCO's problem instead
sources back to the Microsoft ANTI-TRUST case. If the settlement with MICROSOFT
was done correctly... SCO might have more application development having been
done for UNIX. As the JUDGE and lawyers in the MS anti-trust case would have
first understood that the problem with Microsoft's MONOPOLY postion is not JUST
the way it treated vendors, THE PROBLEM also was (is still) that MS used this
position to make so much MONOPOLY MONEY that they then use to AFFORD TO WRITE
MORE CODE (and quicker)than everyone else (and buy others code as well)! If the
JUSTICE department had done it's job they would have helped the vendors AND
created a non-profit group to dispense some of MICROSOFT's MONOPOLY MONEY to
coders (to fund multi-OS application development projects to compete with
Microsoft's HUGE monpoly money FUNDED head start! NOW - because MS was allowed
to keep all it's MONOPOLY MONEY, MS is still way ahead in the application RACE
and because they still have this MONOPOLY money they can quickly BUY code and
also quickly FUND an army of CODERS to attack anyone they see as competition.
AND SCO and others have been hurt by this.
SO - It has ended up that the only COMPANY that can survive such an attack by
Microsoft IS NOT A COMPANY at all... it is the OpenSource movement. The
opensource movement's application software (albiet moving at a turtle-like pace)
is the only one that can compete with Microsoft's "hare-like" application
development/code purchasing pace. The only way that MS can KEEP it's
government and court supported MONOPOLY POSISTION is to support/affect a FORKING
of Opensource, OR put software patents in front of our penguin so that it can
not fly past!
PJ is right. The conspiracy is in play. Microsoft just needs to weaken GNU GPL
LINUX to afford them a little more time to move it's NEW multi-OS DEATH STAR
into postion. WARNING: This new MS weapon-of-mass-destruction... will combine
all of MICROSOFT's former weapons WITH the SCO UNIX license AND with the
CONNECTIX product line that they bought this year (anyone remember this: oops
url is too long, so search google with this string * Microsoft buys Virtual PC,
Virtual Server products from Connectix * )..., well,
...MS will SOON use their purchased UNIX rights from SCO to have a VIRTUAL
MACHINE capable NSA Security Enhanced Linux-like (MS-SE LINUX anyone?),
UNIX-like, BSD-like proprietary version of an OS that will RUN *UNIX APPS*,
*LINUX APPS*, and *NEW AND OLD WINDOWS APPS* = THIS WILL HAPPEN! MS just
needs TO be able to stop GNU GPL LINUX momentum now, or slow them up in order to
give them the time that they need to finish constuction of a government funded
and security enhanced DEATH STAR! AND, when they move it into position they
will market it as an OS that can run secure applications and non-secure
applications AND games, MS-DOS, etc - all from a single install!
SCO really does not know who their enemy is! SCO - look in your rear view
mirror and see that YOUR government and YOUR anti-trust court supported enemy is
not the GPL or the Penguin! SCO your real enemy is the future power of the *NEW
OS DEATH STAR* that MICROSOFT is NOW building! SCO wake up! annon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
thoughts on this?
maybe the news reports are coming slower so sco can ask for another delay and
can say we have been quite since redhat filed suit? this is in reference to
redhat lawsuit
br3n brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 08:55 AM EDT |
BubbaCode,
As I stated earlier, I'd made a mistake in the previous post. SCO does have a
homegrown journaling filesystem called HTFS, which, given the google posts about
it, appears to have been somewhat buggy.
That doesn't mean there's no problem with SCO suing two companies at once over
two different filesystems, it simply means that my fictional lawyer's tactics
will be a little different.
Alex Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
annon; we prefer facts over FUD on this site. :)
We know MS is bad... but that's no reason to rant blindly. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 09:23 AM EDT |
I wish we would stop wasting time on tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.
RIAA are not behind SCO. SCO might want you to think it, as it makes them look
more important, and more likely to win, than SCO infact are. No doubt, some
company, somehow connected to the RIAA, has at some time bought some SCO
software. I would be surprised if that was not the case.
MS are not behind SCO. SCO might want you to think it, as it makes them look
more important, and more likely to win, than SCO infact are. No doubt, MS enjoy
the FUD for tactical reasons, but that is a long way from being behind SCO.
Sun are not behind SCO. SCO might want you to think it, as it makes them look
more important, and more likely to win, than SCO infact are. No doubt, Sun enjoy
the FUD for tactical reasons, and look like they got a got deal on the stock,
but that is a long way from being behind SCO.
Who is behind SCO? Answer: SCO and Canopy. It is right there in the open.
Canopy lend SCO money, legal counsel (Tibbetts), about own half the company,
rent them their building, shuffle companies around with SCO in various complex
stock deals (ex: Vultus), transfer products from SCO to other Canopy companies
in more complex deals (Volution).
Why are SCO doing it?
There are only a few plausible reasons, in my opinion. These include
(there may be more):
1. They really think they can win against IBM. One problem with this explanation
is the increasingly erratic behavior, all the contradictions in their
statements, etc.
and/or 2. They thought IBM would pay them or buy them, to make the problem go
away. They miscalculated. Same problem, as previous explanation, unless you
believe their later actions are somehow supposed to ratchet up pressure on
IBM.
and/or 3. It's all about the stock price.
As for SGI threat:
There isn't one from SCO. That's a reporter hypothesizing.
A long time ago, SCO said they would sue a second hardware company and terminate
a 2nd license. There was much speculation about who it would be at the time.
Would it be HP? SGI? etc. When SCO announced who the second company was - it
was Sequent. It's already happened.
If they sue SGI - according to SCO counting, used at the time, that would be 3rd
hardware company. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 09:35 AM EDT |
SCO have said in a press release, when they sold their first license (and
subsequently said they've sold a 2nd and possibly more in news articles).
There is an interesting coincidence about the timing of 1st license
announcement.
According to marketwatch.com on 11 August:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/historical
/default.asp?detect=1&symbol=SCOX&close_date=8%2F11%2F03&x=48&y=18
Stock opened at $10.45
Heavy trading (965,500 shares)
Fell to a low of $8.27. From Yahoo message board (see below) this appears to be
around late lunch time.
Stock closed at $9.289
Go look around here for what was being said on the yahoo board around 1.30 to
2pm this time:
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm
=FN&action=l&mid=&board=1600684464&sid=1600684464&tid=cald&start=26210
The press release when SCO announced their first license was at 2.03pm ET
according to the time stamp on it
http://biz.yahoo.com/prn
ews/030811/lam083_1.html
No doubt the timing is all coincidence.
Another coincidence is that Michael Olson, had a 10b5-1 sell on that day
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/0001102542030000
49/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml
No doubt, another coincidence. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 09:53 AM EDT |
error27 wrote "As I read the article, SCO is using their existing UnixWare
connections to sell Vultus software which runs on Windows." See, that's the
cute part about the quoted article. Notice that two separate things were
actually said: 1. SCO has started a web services initiative and 2. SCO has sold
some new licenses to OS/UW customers. Other articles split these points out a
little more carefully, but it's not being said that these companies bought the
new SCOx-branded stuff. The corporation I'm involved with even has IBMers on
site full time, somehow I don't see major inroads for SCO there.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Mw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 10:14 AM EDT |
monkeymind, thank you so very much. I'm off to take a look.
I concur with MathFox about sticking to facts, but apparently disparate facts do
show patterns, eventually, if there is a pattern to be found. That's what
investigative journalism is. For example, I just finished researching Gartner
and Silver Lake, and I'll probably write it up when I get time. Meanwhile, if
you are interested, go to SEC and look up Gartner's most recent filing. Search
for "Integral Capital" and "IC" in that filing. Then go to Google and search
for "Silver Lake". pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 10:14 AM EDT |
"SCO has not run out of someday, maybe, could be threats."
I would suggest italicizing or putting quotes around
"someday, maybe, could be"
I had to read the sentence several times before it made sense. tiredofsco[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
"If they sue SGI - according to SCO counting, used at the time, that would be
3rd hardware company."
Besides, not so long ago someone in SCO (Darl?) said they are not going to sue
SGI (for now) becouse ... they don't have the money!
This was in connection to the "stolen" text they exhibited at the conference (to
give example of how IBM stole code) and later said SGI(!) contributed it.
so, SCO ...
1. uses code contributed by SGI to sue IBM
2. can't sue SGI because it costs too much
3. will sue 1000 major corporations if they don't pay for using code that might
not exist
4. will not sue anyone but IBM
This is really advanced stage people. Increasing medication might not cut it. Yury[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
MathFox, Sorry if it looked like FUD to you... I guess that I will have to
explain that I am indeed sorry that things might look a bit different from my
point of view. It's just that pj's article about Integral Capital Management
companies and Silver Lake Partners has kept me thinking about what other reasons
may be out there to explain why Microsoft wants to buy a UNIX license, AND why
they also want to support any disruptive actions that could maybe damage GNU
GPL LINUX (and what MS did to IBM back in the OS2 days).
Go back and search google again and read the ComputerWorld article that comes up
first!
Search for: * Microsoft buys Virtual PC, Virtual Server products from Connectix
*
Factual quote from ComputerWorld article:
[Rather than buy the entire company, Microsoft instead purchased two Connectix
client products -- Virtual PC for Windows and Virtual PC for Mac -- as well as a
server-based product, Virtual Server, that's currently undergoing beta testing,
according to Jim Hebert, general manager of Microsoft's Windows server product
management group.
"We were hearing from customers that getting a supportable virtual machine
solution from Microsoft would be an attractive thing," he said.
In addition to the software, Microsoft also will hire the engineering and
support teams that have worked on the products, according to Hebert.
Virtual PC software allows users to run multiple PC-based operating systems and
applications on a single workstation. Hebert said a typical scenario might
involve a user who has upgraded to Windows XP yet wants to run an older
application that was built for Windows 95 or Windows 98. Using the Virtual PC
software, the user can run the application plus the older underlying operating
system on the new PC, Hebert said.
Virtual PC for Mac works in much the same way, allowing users of Apple Computer
Inc.'s Macintosh computers to run various versions of the Windows operating
system through emulation.
Similarly, the Virtual Server software lets users run multiple distinct copies
of a server operating system on a single physical machine. ]
Facts:
- Microsoft distrupted IBM-OS2 by jointly funding CITRIX (with Intel and VC
groups -sound familiar),
- Citrix was made from key IBM-OS2 team STAFF (coders or marketing
staff?)(IBM-OS2 was slow to get out),
- Microsoft saw that CITRIX was doing well so they bought the multi-user
ability for NT (terminal server),
- Microsoft has bought rights to UNIX (what did SCO get in return, just money
and a thank-you card?),
- Microsoft has bought a vitual machine technology that was designed for
Apple's OS (UNIX, right?),
- Microsoft hired the Connectix engineers and support teams (to support MS
Windows? - I don't think so!),
- Microsoft has set up an enterprise testing LAB to test LINUX (and what else,
why not MS UNIX),
- Microsoft is no stranger to trying to develop it's own version of UNIX (how
old are you - remember?),
- Microsoft has been embarrassed by Security problems (and admitting it, thus
clobbering MS and why?),
- Microsoft has no problems saying that their old OS was bad, and that the new
one is better (everytime),
- Microsoft has tried to get these National Security Agency pages removed ( http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/ ),
- The NSA has not removed these pages for a SOLID reason (monolithic kernel vs
micro kernel security?),
- LINUX OS development DOES NOT have a NSA SE LINUX supported direction 100%
(and why not- big mistake?),
- Microsoft when they discovered the internet did adapt and quickly (remember
NETSCAPE vs IE wars),
- Microsoft with it's 50 billion dollars in the bank can pay to create
applications (faster than anyone),
- Microsoft with it's 50 billion dollars can market any new OS as the "new
solution" (better than anyone),
- Microsoft's Bill Gates developed and sold a compter software program for
tracking collection of parking meter money while he was still in High School
(does anyone think that he is stupid - he is still using his parking meter
collection application development experience and his sales experience to MOVE
Microsoft further into the space of figuring out how to make solutions that make
him money),
- The US anti-trust courts will not stop MS for at least 5 years no matter what
they do (lack speed),
- Microsoft is not below thinking "that if you can't beat em then join em"
(ONLY MS WINS doing it),
- With Bill Gates it isn't about the money... it's that he hates following, is
impatient, and hate to lose (ask his wife and she will most likely tell you the
truth).
I wish it was not a fact that MS is doing a UNIX based OS. The writing is on
the wall (above) - no FUD!
pj's brand X OS is not exactly what MS has in mind (instead, it will be a real
MS only OS)! Because FACT: sharing OS space is not a forte of Microsoft! Bill
Gates could not sleep at night or live as party to ANY group controlling a Brand
X UNIX-like OS..., as it is not his style (a snake will change it's skin when it
needs to..., however, the snake will not change ever it's stipes)! How long
have we known Bill (25 or so years now?), do you think that he has changed?
Q: Do you not think that SCO has been an inexpensive PAWN for MS in this whole
scenerio?
Q: Do you think that the longer that this SC0 vs LINUX mess drags out the better
for Microsoft (and the worse for SCO)?
Q: What about LINUX?
Today, SCO needs to understand that they have been taken advantage of by
Microsoft! Hopefully, they will do the right thing and leave the dark side
before it's too late... -unless, because of the nature of their deal with
Microsoft (royalties), it already is too late! annon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
Mw, on these being existing customers, I am not so sure, because of their most
recent quarterly with the SEC saying this:
"(11) SIGNIFICANT CUSTOMERS
During the three and six months ended April 30, 2003, two customers accounted
for approximately 39 percent and 24 percent, respectively, of the Company’s
total revenue. There were no outstanding receivables from these two customers
as of April 30, 2003. During the three and six months ended April 30, 2002, the
Company did not have any customers that accounted for more than 10 percent of
total revenue."
That doesn't mean you are wrong, because of spin factors, but it's something to
consider.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903012299/j2045_1
0q.htm
annon, what would be really helpful (not that you haven't already been so) is
the urls, so we can all follow along. Next time. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 11:34 AM EDT |
The Virtual PC stuff is so that Microsoft can march forward with their DRM
enabled OS plans while providing backwards compatibility via a "virtualized"
version of XP running within it. Thus they control (DRM wise) access to/from
the virtualized XP portion.
At the same time, it allows them to have a virtualized offering on Windows 2003
for older NT customers to run their apps in on the server side, and they also
pick up a product to sell (and/or kill off when the time is right) for their Mac
divsion.
This theory was first put forth by David Mohring, not I, but is the most
plausible one I have heard so far. Raving Luni[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
I agree in general with quatermass and others. We don't want GROKLAW to become
a big rant site about "evil ___________ that are with the evil________" There
are PLENTY of places to read and say that sort of thing. If you believe that,
great but lets keep discussion here off this. Remember MANY people are reading
this. If we come accross as just another bash site and not a research site then
we have lost a great oportunity here.
No coincidence, quatermass. SCO has stated publicly that the SCOsource = profit
for them. No license, no profit. Hence every time a license is anounced or the
rate and amount of license increases, stock goes up.
OK Quartermass try this one on for size. Add 4. to your list in the post
above.
4. Its about selling some licenses and/or raising capital. Its about making
the bottom line at SCO look good, even temporarily.
Why? Canopy buys SCO. They want to "turn it arround" quickly. That means
either it makes a profit by itself with in 3 - 5 years OR it increases in value
and they sell it. Typical of these conglomarates which are only about buying
and selling companies they get a CEO in that they know from somewhere. He (its
almost always a he) is usually taking the CEO as big step up from where he was.
The job is nearly impossible. The company is usually to big, bad culture, poor
or outdated projects, projects in R&D that are behind schedule and poorly
focused, etc. The guy has to find SOME way to get to profit AND growth. Very
important point here it CAN'T just be profit he MUST GROW THE COMPANY. If he
doesn't. Wack he's fired and they look for another sucker.
OK your McBride (I know it makes you sick but stay with me her). You are a
difficult person to hire for a normal company. You just sued the shit out of
your previous employer over relocation. Not a good trait. No normal company
would hire you to save their soul. BUT your budies over at Canopy will pick you
up. "This is your big chance Darl. Screw up your out, don't and there's a big
reward. You got 3 years. Good luck, and no excuses. Grow SCO!"
Time runs on. First you implement the "web services/ synergy" plan of Canopy.
It looks ok,but it's taking too long. The economy sucks. You are running out
of time. You are running out of money. Sales are down. You can't shop SCO for
sale because now its worth a LOT less than what you paid for it. Besides as
Darl that's not an option. You have to raise more money or get this baby BIGGER
somehow. Hmm.. sales are down. Next thing down the pikes not going to cover
it... What to do.....? Hey I know didn't those guys that did the Linux
Personality stuff say that UnixWare and Linux are REALLY similar?
Then you start selling and lying. This is VERY common in capital raising. You
say stuff like "there's risk but there is 2.4 million servers. The suit is for
$1B, no $3B again IBM" You may even KNOW you have no case. Lay off the linux
guys. Close down the linux division. cover up. Remember this is different
than selling an actual product. You are selling an idea. A potential
income.
Dale might even be lying to Canopy. You lie to everyone. As long as you get
the money up front. Most companies writting the big checks get some
consideration. Stock, software, engineering work, you name it.
You get MS to buy a "license". You probably get this before you file the
papers. And off you go.
Yes there is an "anti-GPL" culture at work here. But remember "destroying" the
GPL doesn't save Dale's job and doesn't add too much to the bottom line.
Its about the money folks. One way or the other it's about money. For people
like Dale it is ALL they really think about. They might TALK about GPL, but
they live or die by the bottom line at SCO.
It could be about the stock, but more than likely its about the cash up front.
They can only do so much with the stock, everyone (including the SEC) is
watching that. They can cash in a few shares, maybe give some away to buy
something. They might be so bold as to try an purchase someone with a stock
only deal. But keep in mind it is VERY difficult to "pump" stock. Lots of
companies roll out great products, over state how everything is going to no
avail on the stock price.
Can you tell. I've been a worker in some of these "raise capital NOW"
environments and sometimes its not fun. Pray for the poor souls at SCO.
Trust me on one thing. The presure on Dale is emmense. Presure from MS.
Pressure for Canopy. Pressure from institutional owners. You name it.
One way to make this all stop is for it to cost SCO money instead of making them
money. That's what IBM / Redhat's suit is all about. DON'T BUY A LICENSE!!! BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
Jeeze that one was long. Sorry. BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 11:39 AM EDT |
quatermass wrote:
"MS are not behind SCO. SCO might want you to think it, as it makes them look
more important, and more likely to win, than SCO infact are. No doubt, MS enjoy
the FUD for tactical reasons, but that is a long way from being behind SCO."
I don't think that M$ is "behind" SCO, as some sort of mastermind in a
conspiracy theory. But- given the fact that M$ is funding these SCO shenanigans
with about 10 million in "license fees," I believe M$ certainly supports what
SCO is doing. And I think it is highly possible that one of 2 things has gone
on- the M$ "dirty tricks dept." has advised SCO on the finer points of FUD, or
Darl has done some excellent research on M$-directed FUD campaigns.
Because he is a devout Moron, I tend to think Darl hasn't done any research at
all. There are SO many advantages to stopping the Linux juggernaut- for M$.
Look at how much Linux is costing M$- a little over one year ago, a SQL Server
license was selling to mostly corporate customers for 15K a pop. Then IBM
introduces DB2/Linux for 2K or so, and M$ SQL licenses drop down to 4K (I don't
know what they are). IBM's marketing machine is very good, and the DB2 software
is faster than SQL server.
Linux is so good that it does all of what M$ claims its software will do- only
for free (free as in licensing, not free as in free beer), and also gives one
the source code to the OS. Makes integrating apps so much easier. M$ ".Net"
(.Not?) was released a couple of years ago, and nobody cares. You bet
Gates-Ballmer is afraid.
Gartner Group? A favorite "respected" MS FUD partner, used against Linux
before. So why is Gartner Group aiding the so-called SCO FUD campaign. Well,
if it looks like sh*t, and smells like sh*t, chances are it probably is sh*t.
SCO started this, but I think M$ is helping out here.... wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 11:41 AM EDT |
Oh- meant to say I don't know what they are NOW in reference to M$-SQL
licenses..... wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
BubbaCode wrote:
"Lots of companies roll out great products, over state how everything is going
to no avail on the stock price."
True- but, it's much easier to manipulate stock prices when 95% of the shares
are privately held.... wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
You know what is funny here? By attacking "Linux," I doubt much serious damage
will be done at all to the GPL, or to open source products. Sort of like if an
M-1 tank is preparing to roll over you, and you shoot off one of its GPS
antennas- big deal, the tank will still squash you.
Take the worst case scenario- the Linux kernel can't be used because it is too
seriously compromised. What happens? A BSD or Mach kernel is substitited, or
even the Hurd, and most of the talent works on integrating it with the same open
source building blocks that comprise Linux. 6 months or so later, a brand new
OS exists- SUSE BSD, RedHat HURD, whatever. And what happens to SCO? Well,
Stallman wrote gcc all on his lonesome, so there is no chance of a similar
lawsuit against it (or against emacs or whatever, for that matter). SCO's
programming FAQ recommends gcc; they also use Samba. When the new OS operating
system is released, none of these open source products work with SCO.....And the
Penguin champions the new OS.
Can they attack Stallman? I would chuckle if these bozos (M$ and SCO) tried
going after the FSF. Some of the best legal minds in the country would stomp on
them. The legal minds that actually taught lawyers like David Boies all about
law.
M$ can't stop the trend towards lower information costs, no matter what they do.
If Gates-Ballmer had an absolutely flawless operating system, and lowered
prices tremendously, and provided cheap source code licenses, they MIGHT be
abl;e to compete. But they can't compete with what they have, with the game
plan they have. Look at Munich. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 12:09 PM EDT |
pj: Previous SCO press suggests that those two big customers are most likely
Microsoft and Sun. For example, this
article contains the claim that "SCO has booked over $13 million this year
in SCOsource licensing deals with Microsoft and Sun." 13000/21369 (first
quarter revenue) gives about 60%, really close to that 39+24 (63%) SCO quoted.
This stuff can be hard to peg down since sales can be booked and announced in
different quarters, but (assuming that the reporters quoted the correct
numbers!) that sure looks like the same money. Mw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
Mw, no, I don't think so. If you read the SEC filing, you will note that the
context indicates that these are not licensing customers being discussed. Take
a look and see what you think. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 12:49 PM EDT |
Annon; I know Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. (And they don't show much
intention to improve their behaviour.) If you like Microsoft bashing read http://www.lamlaw.com/
Let's just stick to the SCO case... Microsoft is funding SCO. They must like
the SCO FUD. (It is better than what their PR agencies did with "the way out".)
Linux is costing Microsoft. They have to improve quality and security to remain
in the market. They have to lower prices. And if Microsoft wanted to market a
UNIX, they would have done so 20 years ago. Well they actually did and dropped
the product because it was not profitable enough!
Microsoft can buy into a lot of markets with their 50G$, but there are very
few markets as profitable as commodity software was. Office and Windows are the
only profitable products from Microsoft. As long as their customers are willing
to pay the price Microsoft ask. And a MS-UNIX won't make a profit as long as
there's Linux and BSD.
As others have explained SCO is cornered and (likely) doomed. It's their own
actions that caused it and not Microsoft or any other third party. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
article on Be lawsuit setlement with MS.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s
tory&cid=562&ncid=1209&e=1&u=/ap/20030906/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_settlementBubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
pj: SCO did word their statement to suggest that thay're not referring to
licensing customers, but the numbers simply don't add up. Check it out: product
(OS/UW) revenue, 11.122 (52%). Licensing (SCOsource), 8,250 (39%). Services,
1,997 (9%). The two customers mentioned on page 17 were supposedly responsible
for 63% of revenue, which is slightly more than product and service revenues
combined. Unless *all* their other customers suddenly evaporated, something is
very wrong there. Therefore, at least some of that has to be licensing revenue,
and 100% of 8,250 is attributed to exactly two licensing deals explained on page
21 of the 10Q (one is MS, the other is apparently Sun). There is a big chunk of
deferred revenue in their liabilities column (the license deals are supposed to
be paid in quarterly installments), and that would nicely explain why the
numbers don't add up. SCO are once again being a bit, um, casual with their
terminology. Mw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 01:20 PM EDT |
Taking an alternative reading of the 10Q language, those mysterious customers
are indeed the two SCOsouce deals. "During the three and six months ended
April 30, 2003, two customers accounted for approximately 39 percent and 24
percent, respectively, of the Company’s total revenue." Either than can mean
that those are the repective percentages of the two customers, or it means that
39% of the quarter, and 24% of the half came from those two sources. note that
39% is exactly the portion of revenue thyat came from licensing.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Mw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
Yep, and 8324 os 24% of the 34909 total rev for the quarter, so there it is.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Mw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
For the half, not the quarter. Ugh, looking at financial statements is
painful. Mw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
"Licensing revenue was $8,250,000 for the second quarter and first two quarters
of fiscal year 2003 as compared to no revenue for the second quarter and first
two quarters of fiscal year 2002."
That is the revenue from MS and Sun. Those are the only licensing revenues for
SCOsource listed that I can see. The reason they state it as "over $13M" in
their press releases is because they have deferred payments in the upcoming
quarters for an additional $5M.
Factoring out this (SCO)source of income, the other aspects of their business
are decling - both services and product licenses. If it wasn't included, SCO
would have posted a) a loss and b) declining overall revenues, instead of a) a
profit and b)an increase in revenues. Raving Luni[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
I think there is a simple explanation for MS wanting virtual PC for Mac - they
want to get Mac users hooked on Windows only S/W products so that when those
users upgrade Windows machines are considered to replace the Mac. That would
explain them bundling it with Office for Mac - it's a promo tool so they want
people to have it. Also separating it from the development of the other versions
of Virtual PC probably doesn't make economic sense so the 3 versions were
probably offered to MS as a bundle, not separate products.
Microsoft and Sun have both used the SCO case to promote their proprietary OS
solutions over Linux. The RIAA haven't said a word on the issue - although SCO
would like to draw them in I don't think they are involved.
I think MS are trying to acheive a state of plausible deniability for direct
involvement. That may be because they are not directly involved or because the
risks of them being seen to be directly involved are too great. If there is
evidence that can break down the barriers they are trying to put up in this
regard then that is great but we must be careful to stick to presenting the
evidence and not make the case until the evidence is strong enough, otherwise we
risk blinding ourselves to what is really happening.
Checking up on the 10Q it lists the price paid for Vultus as 167,590 shares of
restricted common stock plus up to an extra 137,000 shares of restricted common
stock. I therefore wonder how this ties in with the widely reported figure of 3
million shares and where those 3 million shares went as they must have been
issued to make the reported earnings per share work out - did Sun or MS take out
their stock option? Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 06 2003 @ 06:47 PM EDT |
SCO vs LINUX related. Note that an educated discussion and even a heated
educated debate (for and against issues) is always healthy. And when we
disagree it is also healthy to do so. Brainstorming is good... because even if
someone says something stupid, that statement may trigger something in someone
else's mind that leads to an even better idea or thought...! So, please do not
consider this ranting, but more like being a very weak and over stated
supplement to one of pj's daily brainstorms (brainstorms that have been at a
Catagory 5 level since she started this thing). Hopefully, this will be my last
comment relative to the subject. This is for the GROKLAW archieves/records and
per pj's missing url issues.
Microsoft is a key interested party to the SCO vs LINUX scenerio and pj had a
good point that it is also important to see who ALL may also be playing in the
SCO vs Linux game at this time! I think that we can break down the opposition to
GNU GPL Linux into camps that have different self-interest related motives. All
these camps are thinking in terms of what is beyond the lawsuit. I THINK THAT
THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR EVERYONE RIGHT NOW IS THIS: JUST EXACTLY WHAT ARE
THE MAJOR LINUX APPLICATION DEVELOPERS AND THEIR VENTURE CAPITAL BACKERS
THINKING RIGHT NOW! In the above posts I just wanted to point out that
Microsoft had organized a group of allies against IBM before, was successful,
and may be up to MS's old tricks again. If this is the case, then when SCO's
anticiplated LINUX user income does not measure up for the quarter, then how do
those that have paid dearly, with a passion, for SCO stock... how can they
afford to keep those quarterly reports positive? SCO can use the undisclosed
license sale data to hide revenue source identities, but for how long? Is this
data that can be obtained by court order? Who are the hidden investors and what
are their motives?
pj - I don't have urls for everything you wondered about above - I think that
most all the facts are well known except for the Citrix historical data relating
to the story of the two OS/2 versions, an IBM version and a Microsoft version.
Note that these next referances provide some insight on past Microsoft tactics
that might, bear to, a fast forward to today's a SCO investors motives and
actions! http://archive.citrix
.com/press/corpinfo/10year.asp - a chronological history of Citrix
(incorporated April 1989, Microsoft granted Citrix OS/2 license, etc), http://www.fa
stcompany.com/realtime/florida/eiacobucci.html - a bio on Citrix founder, "
Before founding Citrix in 1989, Iacobucci was with IBM for 11 years, where he
was responsible for design and architecture of operating systems for the IBM
Personal Computer Division. At that time, Iacobucci headed the joint
IBM-Microsoft design team that developed the original OS/2 operating system". ,
next url costs money so you can't get it without a Wall St Journal subscription
- dig into Wall St. Journal 1989 or so article about Comdex that gives a blow by
blow discription of the MS-IBM behind the scenes Comdex meetings in a parking
lot IBM custom built trailer where the head of Microsoft and the head of IBM go
head on head, and Gates wins at the joint press conference, held before any
results of the meeting can be signed, by telling the world what they are going
to do (Microsoft is going to do Windows, yet behind the scenes Citrix may have
been already granted their OS/2 license by Microsoft and if so, how much of this
did the IBM head know anything about?), I have searched for the url for the
next article but can not find it, BUT - I do have a copy of PickWorld
July/August 1992 pages where the former Pick Systems (now new post merger name
is RainingData) magazine has a 1992 article titled "WINDOWS NT TO PLAY STRATEGIC
ROLE IN PICK MARKET" - there is a bunch of data related to Citrix here:
"Iacobucci, originallly headed the joint IBM/Microsoft team which developed
OS/2. Iacobucci became frustrated when IBM wanted him to exclude features, such
as multiuser operation, from OS/2. They feared that a too powerful OS/2 would
erode the market for their midrange product lines such as the IBM 36, AS/400 and
RS/6000. In April of 1989 Iacobucci and about fourteen of the IBM OS/2 team
left IBM to form Citrix. From Microsoft they acquired the rights to the MS-DOS,
OS/2 and Windows source code and proceeded to enhance OS/2". "Citrix has been
able to attract venture capital from SRB Partners, Kleiner Perkins, Caulfield,
and Byers; and Mayfield Fund". "Of more significance is the strategic partner
relationship which Citrix has developed with Microsoft, Intel and most recently
Novell. I also don't have the url that notes that Microsoft and Intel were each
10% owners of the original Citrix -but I have read that somewhere. The
questions as to if IBM development was slowed down by a loss of talent to Citrix
can be debated, and of the original 14 that left IBM to form Citrix how many
were marketing folks, and how many followed after they were offered what kind of
deals? After the 1989 Comdex disagreements between the heads of IBM and
Microsoft, you can bet that MS was NOT helping IBM OS/2 development! Who stood
to gain by IBM's OS/2 not getting started on the right foot? AND most important
is, at the time, what did IBM OS/2 application developers think?
Fast forward: IBM, SCO, Microsoft, SUN, LINUX (a new OS that is challenging
Microsoft and UNIX) and some others that SCO will not name! The name of the
game is not the LAWSUIT but, instead, the most important game that SCO,
Microsoft, and others are FUDing around with is this "how do they scare
application developers away from LINUX, while MS and/or SCO get something else
going". Sure, we all have our theory about what if someone sees Elvis... but,
today, pj's venture capital group(s) involvement is indeed very interesting.
Where else are these VC folks invested and are they invested in Windows app dev
or LINUX app dev or UNIX app dev? THE real PRIZE is the application develpment
side of the equation!
Q: Is Darl's silent majority... also SCO's silent investors or SCO's silent
license purchasers? Just exactly who is very interested in SCO having a series
of healthy quarterly reports? PJ started this and I think that she is right!
Why? Because if someone could profit by legally slowing down or druging a
racing penguin - THEY WOULD TRY TO DO IT! GNU GPL LINUX is our TUX Racer and
there are those that want to slow TUX down! If they exist... then, who are they
and what is their plan? annon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|