decoration decoration

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

Groklaw Gear

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

To read comments to this article, go here
SCO Shareholder Meeting in April or May - Yarro Staying?
Tuesday, March 15 2005 @ 10:49 AM EST

Now *this* is interesting. SCO's PR guy, Blake Stowell gives an interview to Computer Business Review Online about Canopy and its current position with regard to SCO and about Ralph Yarro, currently the chairman of the SCO board, in which Stowell "added" that Yarro's position will be up for renewal at the next annual shareholder meeting. Darcy Mott's too. PR people don't add details the interviewer didn't ask about without a reason, in my experience. Talk about floating a balloon. I'd say better not buy that second house until June.

Stowell also says SCO hopes to file its delayed 10K shortly, hopefully before the delisting meeting on the 17th. And about Canopy and SCO, we learn this:

"Stowell also confirmed that Canopy, formerly SCO's largest shareholder, is no longer financially connected to the company, which is best known these days for its breach of contract and copyright lawsuit against IBM.

"'I believe that is the case that there is no longer a financial relationship between Canopy and SCO,' he said, adding that the company nevertheless expected to continue to be based in Canopy-leased property.

"Yarro is now the biggest shareholder of SCO common stock, with 5.4 million shares or 31% of the company's 17.5 million available shares. 'We expect he'll continue to own those shares and we expect he'll continue in his role as chairman,' Stowell said. 'He's taking a long-term view of the value of the shares.'"

Maybe. Maybe not. I believe the eyes of the world will be watching his actions closely for an accurate assessment of his view of the value of the stock. Here's a handy place to keep on the watch. Take a look at the chart for today, on the right of the page.

Melanie Hollands has an article explaining restatements and what they mean and portend:

A restatement does not always spell bad news. But more often than not, it means the company's numbers have headed south. One of the most significant impacts of a restatement is investors and the public begin to question the accuracy of past numbers and quality of management. Furthermore, when one piece of bad news is announced, its often the case that more bad news lies ahead.

It can also be useful to see whether a restatement has lead to a shakeup in management; it's particularly telling if a CEO or CFO is leaving the company, which usually indicates that most of the bad news has been revealed already. However, it can also mean a new, more compliant puppet has been put in place.

And speaking of keeping your eyes on events, you may have noticed that SCO has been subtly changing its SCOsource web pages. Remember when you could buy the license online with a credit card? Try to click on the page currently and you get a 404, document not found. is dead too. And if you try to search for "SCOsource" in their Knowledge Center, it finds zero documents. The FAQ is still there. It still says, "SCO has been showing examples of direct line-by-line copying of UNIX code into Linux to hundreds of industry analysts, reporters, customers, partners, and industry influencers since June of this year."

I would change it too, after Judge Kimball said that SCO had not presented any credible evidence of copyright infringement. On what basis, then, did SCO sell those "Intellectual Property Licenses for Linux"? I can't help but wonder how EV1 feels now.

By the way, you might be interested in knowing SCO's policy with regard to their web content:

Copyright Copyright 1998-2004, The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SCO documents available from the World Wide Web ("SCO Documents") are protected by the copyright laws of the United States and International Treaties.

Permission to copy, view and print SCO documents available from the World Wide Web is authorized provided that:

  • it is used for non-commercial and informational purposes;
  • it is not modified; and
  • the above copyright notice and this permission notice is contained in each SCO Document.
Notwithstanding the above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any right or license under any copyright of SCO.

Well. Fair use still exists, even with all the arrows sticking out of its behind, so I will dare to quote just a small segment. Now you know why I never, ever, use any legal documents from their site. Our policy has been to obtain all documents from the courthouse directly, even when it meant taking more time, and now you know that I didn't just fall off a turnip truck. I knew they'd assert, as they do, on this page, that they owned and/or controlled every dot on the page and would try to enforce it, if they felt like it, and I was pretty sure that when it came to Groklaw, they might feel like it:

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights

SCO actively and aggressively enforces its intellectual property rights to the fullest extent of the law.

Indeedy. So they do. A lot of good it has done them.

There is a lot to be said for good will. People often treat you better if they like you, and then they'll do what you wish out of good-heartedness. But after SCO's legal hissy fit, bullying the world about their alleged "rights", who likes them now?

  View Printable Version

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 )