|Is SCO Math-Challenged?
Friday, August 15 2003 @ 06:14 AM EDT
When SCO "terminated" Sequent's
license on August 13, it said:
". . .Sequent-IBM has
nevertheless contributed approximately 148 files of direct Sequent UNIX
code to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels, containing 168,276 lines of code.
This Sequent code is critical NUMA and RCU multi-processor code
previously lacking in Linux."
I got the following email from
a programmer, in which he challenges those numbers:
". . . NUMA and RCU implementation is at most no more than a dozen or
two files in Linux. Each one is likely 1500 lines on average. So how
does that get to be 148 files and 168276 lines? I think there are 2
possibilities and one of them is very interesting IMHO because they
would have to be saying that they are extending their theory of derived
works to large parts of linux.
"1. They are counting for multiple revision of the files.
"2. They are counting everything that NUMA and RCU _touches_, not just the implementation itself.
"Two other interesting things are the precision with which they state this is clearly bogus. Does that include whitespace? How about comments? Why not 168277 lines? The only way I can see that happening is pick a version (which one? there are over a hundred major releases from Linus alone in 2.4 and 2.5 series), find the RCU and NUMA functions/headers and count every line in every file that includes an RCU/NUMA header or calls an RCU/NUMA function. Anything else would require SCO to have access to the Sequent code (or 3. Just make things up).
". . . Defending these exact numbers is going to be a burden .. ."
I noticed Adam Baker commented on that same 8/13 story, and he did some calculations of his own:
"I've just had a quick grep through the (2.4.19) kernel
source and other than trivia such as calling rcu_init() at startup, RCU
seems to consist of one source file (kernel/rcupdate.c) with a
corresponding header file and NUMA of one architecture independent file,
most of which will be ignored by the compiler in some configurations
because of #ifdef statements and less than 20 architecture specific
source files a few of which would be used in any particular kernel that
supported a specific NUMA machine. Large chunks of this code would also
be Linux specific.
"If you exclude the areas which aren't really
part of the core kernel such as networking, filesystems, device drivers,
SCOs GPLed ABI stuff and sound libraries then the kernel only consists
of 86 architecture independant source files and a further 85 to support
the i386 platform and altogether they only total about 100,000
I'm not a programmer, so i can't speak to this, but when I get information from two sources I trust, it's time to put it up on Groklaw. Did SCO flunk math, as well as GPL Summer School? Or is this foreshadowing an attempted land grab for "derivative" code?
P.S. I just got an email from Roberto Dohnert. He did the math and he says: "To be exact, Numa and RCU come out to 29 files with 1836 lines of code."
|OSDL Q&A by IP Attorney Lawrence Rosen:
Thursday, August 14 2003 @ 01:55 PM EDT
OSDL Q&A by IP Attorney Lawrence Rosen:
"You May Continue to Use Linux WIthout Fear"
There is a new position paper by technology law and intellectual property expert Lawrence Rosen in which he addresses the indemnification FUD as well as whether there is risk in using Linux:
"Q&A re: SCO vs. IBM
"by Lawrence Rosen, General Counsel, Open Source Initiative
"The following questions and answers were prepared by the author at the
request of the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL) as a result of intellectual
property issues arising in the wake of SCO Group's lawsuit against IBM. This
position paper is intended by the author to calm some of those uncertainties.
"Q: Can SCO demand license fees to use Linux?
"A: Sure. But just because someone demands money doesn't mean you should pay them.
SCO has sued only IBM, remember, not you, and is demanding at least $1 billion in
economic damages. IBM didn't reach for its checkbook yet. Why should you?
SCO already licensed Linux to you royalty-free when it distributed Linux under the
GPL license. Although SCO purported to suspend its Linux distribution after the
commencement of this lawsuit, SCO continued to make Linux code available for
download from its website. By distributing Linux products under the GPL, SCO
agreed, among other things, not to assert certain proprietary rights - such as the
rights to collect license fees - over any source code distributed under the terms of the
Some people complain about the absence of indemnity in open source licenses,
including the GPL license used currently for Linux. The economic equation is simple:
Because the software is given away for free, no open source licensor can afford to offer
I don't believe indemnity matters anyway in this case, because of the way SCO has
structured its complaint. Assume, for example, that SCO wins its case against IBM
and IBM pays $1 billion in damages to compensate for the use of SCO's confidential
code in Linux. (Again, this is a worst case scenario helpful only to assess risk to Linux
users.) How then could SCO turn to Linux users and ask for the same damages all
over again. That double-dipping isn't fair in law or in equity. Courts usually don't
Simply by being an interested and aggressive defendant with deep pockets, IBM is
now effectively shielding Linux users from damages, even without an indemnity
provision in the GPL.
"Q: What is my risk if I continue to use Linux?
"A: Assume the very worst: Assume SCO wins its case against IBM and IBM writes a big
check for damages. Assume SCO proves that some portion of Linux is a copy or
derivative work of its trade secret software. Assume SCO gets an injunction to
prevent anyone from using any version of Linux containing infringing code.
As I previously assured you, long before that happens there will be a new open source
version of Linux omitting any SCO code. Non-infringing Linux will be readily
available for everyone's free use because the open source community is entirely
committed to Linux.
Whatever IBM may be forced to pay will presumably compensate SCO for its
damages. It would be astonishing if, after IBM p aid SCO some huge damage award, a
court would let SCO go after users as well for the same damages.
For these reasons, the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit is not likely to have any real impact on
Linux users. It is a battle of big companies that will be resolved in due course by the
court, perhaps by the payment of money.
In the meantime, and forever, Linux is available for free."
OSDL's press release says Lawrence Rosen is founding partner of Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology
law firm, with offices in Los Altos Hills and Ukiah, California (http://www.rosenlaw.com ). He also servers as general counsel and secretary of Open
Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org ), which reviews and approves open source
licenses and educates the public about open source issues. Another release here.
|SCO Comments on Insider Trading
Thursday, August 14 2003 @ 12:18 PM EDT
They have a press release here:
The SCO Group Comments on Insider Transactions
LINDON, Utah, Aug 14, 2003 -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) encourages its directors and executive officers to sell the stock held by them through plans designed to qualify for the protections provided by Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The 10b5-1 plans provide for future sales of stock, at predetermined times and in amounts and under conditions specified in the plans, without subsequent instructions from the participants. These plans have been adopted by the following individuals: Robert Bench, CFO; Jeff Hunsaker, Sr. VP Marketing; Reg Broughton, Sr. VP International Sales; and Michael Olson, VP Finance/Controller. These plans have been implemented primarily for the purpose of providing liquidity to the participants to meet sizable personal tax liabilities resulting from the vesting of restricted stock awards.
During the three months ended July 31, 2003, individuals selling under approved 10b5-1 plans sold 88,000 shares of the Company's common stock. Two other executive officers sold 29,616 shares during the same three-month period in Company approved open trading windows. For the upcoming three-month period to end on October 31, 2003, the above-referenced executive officers may sell up to 141,000 shares of the Company's common stock under current 10b5-1 plans if the conditions of the various plans are met. No other directors or executive officers have implemented a 10b5-1 trading plan to sell shares of the Company's stock during the next three months.
Our directors and executive officers beneficially hold approximately 6,005,000 shares and options to acquire an additional 2,016,000 shares.
|SCO Says It Will Argue Copyright Preempts GPL
Thursday, August 14 2003 @ 10:15 AM EDT
Well, they have to try something.
Here's what the Wall Street Journal is saying today (a link would be useless unless you have a sub):
Now, SCO is preparing to wheel out the software-industry equivalent of a nuclear bomb: It will argue that the GPL itself is invalid, says SCO's lead attorney, Mark Heise of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP. Mr. Heise says the GPL, by allowing unlimited copying and modification, conflicts with federal copyright law, which allows software buyers to make only a single backup copy. The GPL 'is pre-empted by copyright law,' he says. . . .
You know how they say hearing from your doctor you're going to die soon from a disease is followed by stages, denial, grief, anger, and finally acceptance? I think SCO is in the denial phase. If this is their best shot, somebody needs to arrange grief counselling for them, because it's on the horizon.
Wednesday, a spokesman said Microsoft thinks 'the industry would benefit' from a court ruling on the GPL. . . .
James Boyle, an intellectual-property professor at Duke University's law school, says, "I have a hard time seeing any court saying this license isn't enforceable," in part because it covers so much important software. "Courts pay attention to that pragmatically, and it's legally relevant because the consequences [of overturning it] would weigh heavily."
|Is There Linux Code in SCO's UnixWare?
Thursday, August 14 2003 @ 12:05 AM EDT
Ever since the SCO story first broke, a lot of developers have expressed the opinion that if you looked under SCO's hood, you'd likely find some GPL code.
I recently saw a message posted on another site where someone mentioned a specific case where the evidence indicated to him this may indeed have happened. I contacted the writer, Roberto J. Dohnert, a programmer who is the CTO and head consultant for a consulting firm in NC, and whose name I recognized from other things he's written (he's the programmer who figured out that SCO had to be talking about SMP long before SCO told us) and asked him if he'd be willing to write for Groklaw exactly what he found and what his suspicions are.
He had pulled the datasheets for SCO UnixWare 7.1.3 and the datasheets for SuSE Enterprise Server 8, and he noticed that new device drivers in UnixWare matched UnitedLinux, version numbers and all. I asked him to elaborate. He graciously agreed. Here's what he did and what he found and what he suspects:
Comparing SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8
with UnixWare 7.1.3
By Roberto J. Dohnert
"In July, my company was asked to do a comparison between UnixWare 7.1.3 and Red Hat Linux 9 and SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8. The client was taking SCO's threat to heart and asked for the comparison in an effort to affect a migration to the UnixWare platform; they thought it was a safe way to dismiss any legal action that might have been directed at them by SCO.
"During the testing and performance evaluation, I discovered that while Red Hat Linux 9 and UnixWare 7.1.3 were as different as night and day, I found the performance ratio and feature set between UnixWare 7.1.3 and SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 disturbingly similar so I investigated further. The information I did gather was done through the use of datasheets available from the vendors websites. I was unable to do a source comparison because at this time I am not a Source Licensee by the SCO Group.
"The distributions used were UnixWare 7.1.3 Enterprise Edition and SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 (SLES 8) based on UnitedLinux. UnitedLinux is a direct offset of the SuSE Linux kernel and SuSE provides all the kernel packages. I found that several open source packages that are on UnixWare are also on SLES 8. The inclusion of such packages may seem commonplace to some but to me it struck me as odd in regards to the version numbers. The version numbers of all the packages are exactly the same. It struck me as odd because even in the Linux world, most distributions ship with different version numbers of software packages. Below is a detailed list of the packages:
"Java 1.3.1 -04
"Squid Proxy Server 2.4 Stable 7
"On Red Hat 9 the package list for some of the same software is:
"Higher versions of the software were available at the time SCO developed UnixWare 7.1.3. My question was, if SCO wishes to be known as cutting edge, why would they mimic the package list of UnitedLinux instead ? Another thing I found odd was the performance and feature set of kernel level functions. Anyone who uses a SuSE Linux distribution knows the difference between SuSE and other distributions of Linux, both in performance and functionality.
"An example would be APM and ACPI (Advanced Power Management) and (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface). Under SuSE Linux APM and ACPI are turned off by default, You have to enable these functions to activate in the boot process.
"On one of my test machines, a Dell PowerEdge Server, I have to enable APM and ACPI or else 30 minutes into a session the machine locks up. With Red Hat 9 they are turned on by default. With UnixWare 7.1.3, I have to enable these functions to activate in the boot process same as with SuSE or the same result occurs. UnixWare before version 7.1.3 had no, or was lacking, device support for many devices. Upon the new release, it has many new drivers for both USB 1 and USB 2, support for the Xeon processor, PCI-X support, HotPlug PCI, Memory. I have noticed USB devices that don't work with SLES 8, do not work with UnixWare 7.1.3, but under Red Hat Linux they work flawlessly. Also, many of the new device drivers have been working in Linux long before they were available for UnixWare.
"These device drivers were not available on UnixWare until SCO joined UnitedLinux. Many of the quirks that SLES 8 has can be found in UnixWare. SCO has long claimed that UnixWare can scale up to as high as 64 CPU's yet they officially support up to 8 CPU's. The only major difference is the desktops; UnixWare still uses CDE and Panorama while SuSE uses KDE.
"It is my belief and opinion that SCO has indeed borrowed engineering concepts and methods from their association with UnitedLinux. Many of these new features and the remarkable similarity with SLES 8 did not occur until after they started to participate in UnitedLinux and since these features were available to SuSE customers before SCO's involvement I am inclined to believe that SCO's engineering team has been influenced or tainted by the Linux development process. I cannot say if UnixWare 7.1.3 or SLES 8 share common code; as I said I am not a source licensee. I feel these issues need to be investigated further."
If Roberto is right, and an investigation showed common code, then UnixWare 7.1.3 just joined the free world and is now GPLd, and we'd have SCO to thank. Ah! Sweet irony! It just couldn't get any sweeter than that. And the beauty part about lawsuits is: you get to do an investigation. Now, SCO, what was it you were saying about stolen concepts and methods?
|As the Media Turns
Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 02:11 PM EDT
Even ZDNet has seen the light, at last. They have an article by an attorney, Thomas C. Carey, a partner at Bromberg & Sunstein, who was a programmer before he became a lawyer, which outlines some reasons he thinks SCO is in trouble. He outlines all the factors to consider by those thinking of getting a license. This article might come in handy when talking to PHBs. He makes one point that I'd never thought of:
"SCO may have set a ceiling on recovery. SCO has already announced a licensing program with specific licence rates. In the worst case, and unless and until SCO makes a much clearer and more public case that its code has been stolen, SCO is not likely to recover from individual users more than it has announced its licence fees to be. Why pay now when you can pay later or quite possibly not at all?"
A number of articles are beginning to appear where the reporter actually does some digging and evaluating. There is an outstanding example in the story here, "Novell letters throw new light on IBM case" by Sam Varghese. He's been a fair guy for some time, but take a look at this opening section:
"Two letters written by Novell chairman and CEO, Jack Messman, to SCO president and CEO, Darl McBride, in June throw an entirely different light on the lawsuit between SCO and IBM, which the former initiated in March.
"Both letters were cited by IBM as exhibits last week when it counter-sued SCO, on a range of issues.
"The letters indicate that SCO has no contractual right to terminate IBM's AIX licence. The agreement under which IBM acquired these rights appears to have been a three-way contract under which Novell retained certain rights, one being the right to compel SCO to waive or revoke any of its (SCO's) rights under the contract."
He then proceeds to show what it all means. It's so refreshing to see reporters start to get it. It does look like the media tide is turning. SCO's PR team must be up nights.
Here's another one from Linux World, "Is SCO Perfecting the Art of the Big Lie?" by James Turner, senior editor of LinuxWorld Magazine and president of Black Bear Software as well as director of software development of Benefit Systems, Inc. He has a suggestion for SCO, one we've seen before, but I like his spin:
"Maybe they should hire the former Iraqi information minister. 'Thousands of companies have bought our licenses! I will show you the list this afternoon! The blood of the open source infidels will run through the streets of Salt Lake!'"
I'm thinking some Groklaw readers will top him, though. They're a very creative bunch.
Here is another, "SCO Group mines PR of Linux claims, but offers few specifics":
"SCO's poisonous tactics have made it a pariah. The prevailing view in the tech world, as far as I can tell, is the hope that IBM will squash SCO like a bug. "
Here's one that carefully first explains who SCO thinks needs a license, called "Damned if you do and damned if you don't", but it ends like this:
"But when you look at the entire trail of events, one can't help but wonder--is this just a clumsy execution of an 11th hour plan or perhaps a smokescreen for a hidden SCO agenda?"
On the MS Front
Well, they just were found guilty of violating someone's IP. It is a patent case, and they say they will appeal, natch. Eventually, even the large corporations will logically notice that these types of lawsuits are more than annoying. But notice the link to SCO that popped into the reporter's head:
"Microsoft--a stalwart supporter of SCO's IP infringement claims against IBM--has vowed to fight the verdict of a US federal jury that affirmed that the company's Internet Explorer browser violated the IP rights of a smaller ISV. On Monday, a US federal jury in Chicago agreed that IE violated an existing patent and awarded $US521 million to the University of California and Chicago-based Eolas Technologies, which originally asked for $US1.2 billion in damages. . . .
"Microsoft stands by its products and will continue to develop innovative technologies that benefit consumers. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this case, Microsoft will work hard to ensure that there is very little if any impact on our customers."
"Very little, if any." Say, is that the same as indemnification? Kidding.
Speaking of kidding, or is it you must be kidding:
"Scott Charney, chief security strategist at Microsoft, told developers at the TechEd 2003 conference in Brisbane, that information collected by Dr Watson, the company's reporting tool, revealed that 'half of all crashes in Windows are caused not by Microsoft code, but third-party code'".
I knew there must be a "reason" that keeps happening to Windowsfolk.
|I'll Huff and I'll Puff and I'll Huff and I'll Puff Some More -- If That Doesn't Work, Then I'll Hold My Breath
Wednesday, August 13 2003 @ 01:44 PM EDT
SCO has "terminated" Sequent's UNIX System V software contract. This may be setting the stage for some legal action on SCO's part down the road, or just dotting an i (Sequent is already named in the case, but they were added later, in the Amended Complaint, so SCO had to wait the contractually required number of days to "terminate" Sequent after that), or it could be just another puff of FUD smoke, or two of the three. Hopefully, IBM will be able to resist the urge to go off into the woods and slit its wrists.
press release says it was "terminated" for the following reason:
. . .for improper transfer of Sequent's UNIX source code and development methods into Linux. As a result, IBM no longer has the right to use or license the Sequent UNIX product known as "Dynix/ptx". Customers may not acquire a license in Dynix/ptx from today's date forward.
|SCO Insider Trades
Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:38 PM EDT
Here's a list of all the insider trades since 2002 that I could find so far. I compiled it from SEC public records. I am seeing approximately $1,375,654 in sales since March. I can't guarantee 100% accuracy, though my eyeballs are melting and my head about to explode from trying for it. It's surely the big picture:
11-Aug-03 (8/8/03) - BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
7000 ... $10.90 . . . value= $76,300.00
221,043 shares still owned after transaction.
07-Aug-03 (8/5/03) BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
1900 . . . $12.57 . . . $23,883.00
3100 . . . $12.56 . . . $38,936.00
120,000 shares still owned after transaction.
01-Aug-03 (7/30/03) - BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
100 . . . $12.81 . . . $1,281.00
4900 . . . $12.80 . . . $62,720.00
125,000 shares still owned after transaction.
24-Jul-03 (7/23/03) - HUNSAKER JEFF F., VP, Worldwide Mktng
900 . . . $13.44 . . . $12,096
100 . . . $13.43 . . . $1343
500 . . . $13.4 . . . $6700
100 . . . $13.35 . . . $1335
3400 . . . $13.3 . . . $45,220
20,494 shares still owned after transaction.
24-Jul-03 (6/2/03) - RAIMONDI THOMAS P. JR., Director
10000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option 6/2/03 ([right to buy]) price $6.13 . . . $0.00 . . . $0.00= Grant of options (Grant to Reporting Person of a nonqualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year perod commencing from grant date.)
24-Jul-03 - CAKEBREAD STEVEN
10,000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option (right to buy) $4.75) (Grant to a Reporting Person of a Non-Qualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year period commencing from grant date and represents an option received subsequent to Stockholder approval and election of each Board Member to serve on the Company's Board for the 2003 fiscal year.)
. . $0.000 . . . $0.00= Grant of options 5/16/03
24-Jul-03 - IACOBUCCI EDWARD E., Director
10,000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option [right to buy] -- $4.75) . . . $0.00 . . . $0.00= Grant of options 5/16/03 ("Grant to a Reporting Person of a Non-Qualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year period commencing from grant date and represents an option received subsequent to Stockholder approval and election of each Board Member to serve on the Company's Board for the 2003 fiscal year.")
24-Jul-03 - THOMPSON DUFF, Director
10,000 Non-Qualified Stock Option (right to buy)(Grant to a Reporting Person of a Non-Qualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year period commencing from grant date and represents an option received subsequent to Stockholder approval and election of each Board Member to serve on the Company's Board for the 2003 fiscal year. ) price=$4.75 . . . $0.0 . . . $0.00= Grant of options
24-Jul-03 - YARRO RALPH J., Director
10000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option [right to buy] price $4.75 5/16/03 (Grant to a Reporting Person of a Non-Qualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year period commencing from grant date and represents an option received subsequent to Stockholder approval and election of each Board Member to serve on the Company's Board for the 2003 fiscal year.). . . $0.000 . . . $0.00= Grant of options
24-Jul-03 - MOTT G DARCY, Director
10,000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option 5/16/03 [right to buy] - $4.75) . . . $0.00 . . . $0.00= Grant of options (Grant to a Reporting Person of a Non-Qualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year period commencing from grant date and represents an option received subsequent to Stockholder approval and election of each Board Member to serve on the Company's Board for the 2003 fiscal year. )
24-Jul-03 (7/22/03) - BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
100 . . . $13.2 . . . $1,320.00
200 . . . $13.19 . . . $2,638.00
3000 . . . $13.07 . . . $39,210.00
800 . . . $13.02 . . . $10,416.00
10800 . . . $12.91 . . . $139,428.00
3700 . . . $13.13 . . . $48,581.00
1300 . . . $13.1 . . . $17,030.00
100 . . . $13 . . . $1,300.00
130,000 shares still owned after transaction.
18-Jul-03 (7/15/03) - WILSON MICHAEL SEAN, Sr Vp Corp Dev
6000 acquired . . . -$0.66 . . . -$3,960.00
2000 . . . $10.8 . . . $21,600.00
4000 . . . $10.66 . . . $42,640.00
0 shares still owned after transaction.
The 6,000 acquired, Non-Qualified Stock Option (right to buy), were at $0.66.
16-Jul-03 (7/14/03)- WILSON MICHAEL SEAN, Sr Vp Corp Dev
6000 . . . -$0.66 . . . -$3,960.00
200 . . . $10.87 . . . $2,174.00
4800 . . . $10.85 . . . $52,080.00
700 . . . $10.80 . . . $7,560.00
300 . . . $10.77 . . . $3,231.00
0 shares still owned after transaction. The 6,000 acquired, Non-Qualified Stock Option (right to buy), were at $0.66.
14-Jul-03 (7/11/03)- OLSON MICHAEL P., VP Finance
1100 . . . $10.99 . . . $12,089.00
1000 . . . $10.41 . . . $10,410.00
900 . . . $10.51 . . . $9,459.00
1000 . . . $10.42 . . . $10,420.00
1000 . . . $10.4 . . . $10,400.00
2000 . . . $10.45 . . . $20,900.00
1000 . . . $10.53 . . . $10,530.00
58,830 shares still owned after transaction.
18-Jul-03 (6/13/03) - McBRIDE DARL C., President, CEO
7003 acquired . . . $0.001=price . . . 15,003 owned after transaction.
9-Jul-03 - HUNSAKER JEFF F., VP, Worldwide Mktng
4500 . . . $11.80 . . . $53,100.00
100 . . . $11.76 . . . $1,176.00
100 . . . $11.814 . . . $1,181.40
100 . . . $11.812 . . . $1,181.20
200 . . . $11.81 . . . $2,362.00
25,494 shares owned after transactions.
9-Jul-03 (7/8/03)- BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
3700 . . . $11.10 . . . $41,070.00
300 . . . $11.12 . . . $3,336.00
550 . . . $11.05 . . . $6,077.50
2450 . . . $10.91 . . . $26,729.50
228,043 shares still owned after transaction.
9-Jul-03 (7/8/03 - BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
3790 . . . $10.9 . . . $41,311.00
1210 . . . $10.95 . . . $13,249.50
150,000 shares still owned after transaction.
9-Jul-03 - SKOUSEN K. FRED, Director
45000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option [right to buy])(Grant to Reporting Person of a non-qualified stock option to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 2002 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a two-year period commencing from the grant date.) . . . Grant of option to buy 45,000 at $10.25 Date exercisable= 6/26/2004
30-Jun-03 (6/25/03) - BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
5000 . . . $10 . . . $50,000.00
155,000 shares still owned after transaction.
23-Jun-03 (6/20/03) - BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
2700 . . . $11.08 . . . $29,916.00
2300 . . . $11.1 . . . $25,530.00
160,000 shares still owned after transaction.
18-Jun-03 - MCBRIDE DARL C., President, CEO
7003 . . . price= -$0.001 . . . -$7.00
15003 shares owned after the transaction.
12-Jun-03 (6/11/03) - OLSON MICHAEL P., VP Finance
1000 . . . $8.66 . . . $8,660.00
1000 . . . $8.65 . . . $8,650.00
2000 . . . $8.61 . . . $17,220.00
1000 . . . $8.6 . . . $8,600.00
1000 . . . $8.59 . . . $8,590.00
66,830 shares still owned after transaction.
9-Jun-03 (6/9/03)- BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
1900 . . . $9.3 . . . $17,670.00
400 . . . $9.2 . . . $3,680.00
500 . . . $9.201 . . . $4,600.50
200 . . . $9.19 . . . $1,838.00
4000 . . . $9.16 . . . $36,640.00
235,043 shares still owned after transaction.
9-Jun-03 (6/6/03)- HUNSAKER JEFF F., VP, Worldwide Marketing
5000 . . . $8.9 . . . $44,500.00
30,494 shares still owned after transaction.
5-Jun-03 (6/3/03)- BAWA OPINDER
15000 . . . $6.0 . . . $90,000.00
0 shares still owned after transaction.
5-Jun-03 (6/4/03) - BAWA OPINDER
7916 . . . -$1.2 . . . -$9,499.20 (Grant to Reporting Person on non-qualified stock options to buy shares of Common Stock under the Company's 1999 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The option vests over a four-year period commencing from the Option Date.)
7916 . . . $6.6 . . . $52,245.60
15,000 shares still owned after transaction.
9-May-03 - BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
5000 . . . $0.000 . . . $0.00
Shares gifted in accordance with Insider's 10b5-1 trading plan filed with the Issuer. 240,860 shares owned after transaction.
9-Apr-03 (4/8/03)- BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
4100 . . . $2.9 . . . $11,890.00
241,094 shares owned after transaction.
28-Mar-03 (3/18/03)- HUNSAKER JEFF F., VP, Worldwide Mktng
100,000 acquired (Non-Qualified Stock Option $2.07). . . $0.000 . . . $0.00= Grant of 100,000 options
28-Mar-03 (3/18/03) - MCBRIDE DARL C., President, CEO
200,000 (Non-Qualified Stock Options $2.07). . . $0.000 . . . $0.00
200,000 shares beneficially owned following the transaction
28-Mar-03 (3/18/03)- OLSON MICHAEL P., VP Finance
50,000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option $2.07) . . . $0.000 . . . $0.00
50,000 shares beneficially owned following the transaction
28-Mar-03 (3/18/03)- BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES, Sr VP Int'l Sales
50,000 (Non-Qualified Stock Option $2.07) . . . $0.000 . . . $0.00
50,000 shares beneficially owned following the transaction
28-Mar-03 (3/18/03) - BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
100,000 acquired, nonqualified stock option,$2.07. . . $0.000 . . . $0.00
100,000 beneficially owned following the transaction
12-Mar-03 (3/10/03)- BENCH ROBERT K., CFO
7000 . . . $3.06 . . . $21,420.00
245,194 owned after transaction.
NO INSIDER TRADES REPORTED IN FEBRUARY 2003
NO INSIDER TRADES REPORTED IN JANUARY 2003
NO INSIDER TRADES REPORTED IN DECEMBER 2002
NO INSIDER TRADES REPORTED IN NOVEMBER 2002
16-Oct-02 (10/14/02)- MCBRIDE DARL C., President, CEO (Director box also checked.)
3000 shares acquired, price=$1.13. . . -$1.13 . . . -$3,390.00
5,000 shares owned following transaction. (Note: This is what the form says, but it seems not to match the figure of 5,000 shares acquired Oct. 11, filed Oct. 15, 2002. Correct figure would seem to have to be 8,000, if the numbers acquired are accurate.)
15-Oct-02 (10/11/02) - MCBRIDE DARL C., President, CEO, (Director box also checked; Subject Company - Company Comformed Name is CALDERA INTERNATIONAL INC/UT )
5000 shares acquired, price=$1.13 . . . -$1.130 . . . -$5,650.00
5,000 shares owned following transaction.
TOTAL VALUE OF SHARES SOLD FROM MARCH 2003 to AUGUST 11, 2003= $1,375,654
This form, listed in the totals above, is interesting because of mentioning petroleum. It is listed by the SEC under Caldera, but the form itself says this about the company:
COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: BENCH ROBERT K
CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0001012655
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: CRUDE PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS 
STATE OF INCORPORATION: DE
FISCAL YEAR END: 1031
I have no idea what this means about petroleum. I am just reporting it.
The list above isn't financial advice, so don't rely on it for that, naturally. I have provided links so you can verify and do your own searching and comparing. I did think it'd be handy to have this as an overall reference for Thursday, when SCO says it will comment on the sales. Now that Bloomberg has reported on the story, it's useful to document the facts.
As Groklaw reported earlier, the company decided to pay directors in stock a while back, and executives partly in stock. On the other hand, they did that before, and there wasn't the same level of activity. What I see is almost no activity until March, and then kaboom. I see no trading in 2001 at all. Dates are filing dates, followed by transaction dates, when there is a difference. If you note any errors, kindly let me know.
Don't ask me what it means, because I can't say. Literally. IBM has given its opinion in its Amended Answer. I'm not an expert in this area. It's just the research I was able to find, which I present AS IS, as they say. Others can build on it. On this article, if you have important corrections, please email them to me. When I make corrections on an article, sometimes comments get erased.
So, there you are, ready for Thursday.
[Update: SCO's press release regarding insider transactions.]
|No Licensing Suspension
Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 01:27 PM EDT
I know you've seen the reports, and I have too. I haven't published the story up until now, because I couldn't confirm it. When I saw it in the Inquirer, I decided it was time to call SCO. I asked if they would confirm or deny the report that the Linux licensing program had been suspended. The woman said, "I haven't heard anything about it." She asked me where I'd heard or seen this. I told her. She then said she'd heard that someone told her it was on Slashdot, but she couldn't find the story.
What does it mean? Honestly, I don't know for sure, but I'm taking it as a denial. First she said something that could be interpreted a couple of ways, and then said something that indicates one interpretation is that she wasn't completely forthcoming. But what I think she actually meant is that she hadn't heard anything about the program being suspended. Perhaps if I'd tried to get a license, I'd have gotten more information or even different information, but I would have had to lie to do that, and I won't do that. Until there is more than a Slashdot comment to go on, I consider it unfounded, and I think it would be unfair to SCO to spread this story.
Obviously, if I hear more, I'll let you know.
By the way, an alert reader sent me the part of the Wall Street Journal article that the Salt Lake Tribune cut: "It's not hard to imagine a comparable denouement this time. Microsoft has long warned that Linux is a ticking copyright time bomb. Naturally, it's delighted with the lawsuit. But those warnings could have a kernel of truth. It wouldn't be shocking if, scattered in Linux's millions of lines, there were other examples like the one seen by Mr. Taylor: incidental and easily excised. In fact, few pieces of software this big could survive the same sort of review.
"What if, thanks to SCO, Linux could rid itself of any such questionable lines, and end up with a court-issued seal of copyright approval? Then what would Microsoft complain about? And what would SCO's new business plan be?"
|Lee Gomes of the Wall St. Journal Restores My Faith In Journalists
Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 07:41 AM EDT
Remember the first reporter called on in the last SCO teleconference? The one who asked several questions before they made him stop? The one who kept interrupting Darl to get real answers instead of generalities? Well, take a look at what he wrote here. It will restore your faith that there are still some genuine reporters in this world. It's called "SCO not exactly the lovable little guy". It begins, "Sometimes in a David and Goliath story, you want to root for Goliath." And it gets better from there.